PDA

View Full Version : Stranded passengers. This decision could be very far reaching


Loose rivets
31st Jan 2013, 15:24
I can see their point. An open-ended liability could wipe out some airlines.


The airline is not expecting a rush of new claims, because it has settled its ash cloud debts already, our correspondent adds. But it had hoped to win the case in order to limit such claims in the future.


BBC News - Ryanair ash cloud case: EU's top court rules against airline (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21273666)

MADCHESTER CITY
31st Jan 2013, 15:34
For once I have to agree with MoL here.

An Ash Cloud is not their fault and if their flights are forcibly grounded then they shouldn't have to pay 100% compensation

Thunderbirdsix
31st Jan 2013, 15:35
In fairness to Michael O Leary the insurance companies have got off scot free, on this one you would think they would have some part to play in this

From RTE News


In a statement, Ryanair said it regrets the decision of the European Court which now allows passengers to claim for flight delays which are ''clearly and unambiguously outside of an airline’s control''.
The airline pointed out that the travel insurance companies escaped liability by claiming that the ash cloud was an ‘act of God’.
''Today’s decision will materially increase the cost of flying across Europe and consumer airfares will increase as airlines will be obliged to recover the cost of these claims from their customers,'' the company said.

Sober Lark
31st Jan 2013, 15:43
At least the airline industry now has the answer.

Bottom line is all airlines have a duty of care and in my opinion that is a good news story.

The ash cloud may have been an Act of God but it wasn't up to God to look after the passengers.

fantom
31st Jan 2013, 15:44
Ridiculous. Are not margins thin enough already?

DB6
31st Jan 2013, 15:50
I have nothing but contempt for Ryanair but I have much, much more contempt for the EU.
What a bunch of fools.

ilesmark
31st Jan 2013, 15:58
Stand by for yet another compulsory add-on charge to the cost of Ryanair tickets that you don't get to see until just before the last moment when you click to confirm purchase.

'Ash Cloud delay surcharge' or something.

fireflybob
31st Jan 2013, 15:59
I have nothing but contempt for Ryanair but I have much, much more contempt for the EU.
What a bunch of fools.

DB6, agree - yet another reason for leaving EU!

Only a bunch of crazy bureaucrats could make a decision such as this.

Whilst I am in favour of consumer rights I think it is idiocy to ask airlines to cough up for delays which are outside their control.

I hope the airlines pursue this to the High Court in Strasbourg (or is it Luxembourg?) and appeal if that's at all possible.

victorc10
31st Jan 2013, 16:05
Those responsible for closing the airspace...should be required to pay, not the airlines.

PENKO
31st Jan 2013, 16:23
This really baffles me. I would expect Ryanair to repatriate me when the airspace opens up again but how can they be responsible for ALL my costs incurred by the ash cloud?

Who else is responsible? Ryanair just fly me from A to B, but what about my taxi driver? Is he responsible to bring me back to my hotel? What bout my hotel? Should they pay me compensation for the fact that I cannot go home? What about the restaurant I was eating in. Should they feed me till it is all over?

WHAT ABOUT MYSELF? SHOULD I EXPECT THE UNEXPECTED WHEN TRAVELING ABROAD? Or do I hand over all responsibility?

toratoratora
31st Jan 2013, 16:25
such things as ash clouds are specifically disallowed,according to the caa website,as weather phenomena.airline still liable for accommodating pax,however.

fireflybob
31st Jan 2013, 16:31
So if my train is cancelled due to "wrong type of snow" or "leaves on the line" can I claim my hotac and expenses from the train company?

fmgc
31st Jan 2013, 16:32
At least the airline industry now has the answer.

Bottom line is all airlines have a duty of care and in my opinion that is a good news story.

The ash cloud may have been an Act of God but it wasn't up to God to look after the passengers.


The Ash cloud could quite easily have seen the demise of some airlines. Why should only the airlines pick up the bill? So the Ash cloud stranded you but you don't want to share any of the financial burden.

And as "God" doesn't actually exist how can this be used as a defence by the insurers?

HalloweenJack
31st Jan 2013, 16:44
wasn't 2euro being added for this anyway, to the ticket cost?

@victorc10

I can see a large disclaimer in the not to distant future ` we are advising that due to a high level of volcano ash , we strongly advice not to fly through it - but if , as an airline you accept the risk then its down to you , but we advise against it, but we are not closing the airspace , but if you have an accident its down to the airline company`

Sober Lark
31st Jan 2013, 16:48
fmgc, my use of the words Act of God and God is an insurance definition.

Notwithstanding that it is now apparently up to the airlines to insure against the unpredictable.

Tankertrashnav
31st Jan 2013, 17:10
So if my train is cancelled due to "wrong type of snow" or "leaves on the line" can I claim my hotac and expenses from the train company?


Good luck trying that, Bob! ;)

ATC Watcher
31st Jan 2013, 17:13
Both sides have a point.
But that is what insurances should be for.
In the Icelandic volcano case the insurance companies hided also behind the " act of God" and for the vast majority did not compensate their custommers stranded pax.

Having been on the wrong side of the Atlantic at the time the thing erupted, I could watch first hand how the various airlines coped with it.

The very good ones ( LH, DE among others) sent regularly SMS to their pax, keeping them informed and then sent empty aircraft to take back the starnded pax once the airspace was open. ( I was with them fortunately)
The good ones,( the majority) diveterd flights to take slowly the load and re-routed their pax on other airlines.
The bad ones just resumed the normal flights and only took stranded pax back depending on the free seats on board. That took days..
The very bad ones did not bother and offered refund of the cancelled flights , up to you to find a seat back. Some were stranded 10 days .. Some Government charetered aircraft to get their people back.

If you had money , no problem , but if you were a family with 2 kids and your holiday budget was gone, and of course you were on the cheaper last category airlines, this was tragic. I saw complete families sleeping in the terminals, begging for food and water.

How you treat your pax should make you chose your airline, but we know that, not the average pax. So I understand the ruling.

sooty3694
31st Jan 2013, 17:31
For once I also feel a teensy weensy bit sorry for MOL. This kind of eventuality is precisely what insurance companies are for, surely?

Do they have a list of all the potential "acts of God?"
Who actually decides whether an "act of God" has occurred. Her herself?
Why did MOL (who sells so much worthless insurance), not buy some extended cover himself?

If volcanic ash is an act of God, what happens to claims related to accidental engine ingestion of volcanic ash? "Sorry squire, that's an act of God, so not a normal engine ingestion claim!"

The insurance industry should have picked up the tab here, and not MOL or any airline.

PS. Mind you, I bet he regrets taking a measly £900 claim to court, and for that - serves him right!

ulxima
31st Jan 2013, 17:57
The reality is that even during the events of the ash clouds, there have been insurers that did not recognise (or have been forced not to, whatever you like most) this even as an act of God and provided coverage.
HSBC was among these.
MOL and his lawyers knew this.
For a big airline it should not be an issue to negotiate a good deal for a "tailored" travel insurance to charge back to the passenger.
I see the points that EU is full of bureaucrats, but it is also true that most people are far from being able to self covering themselves (for many reasons, including those who are generally unaware). Therefore minimum compulsory protections should apply.
Like the car insurance, if you wish.

Ulxima

cwatters
31st Jan 2013, 18:15
Is it fair to blame the EU court? They were only ruling on what the law says. If you want different laws you have to vote for different governments :-)

Ryanair Loses EU Fight Over Ash Cloud Row (http://news.sky.com/story/1045552/ryanair-loses-eu-fight-over-ash-cloud-row)

The court ruling said: "EU law does not recognise a separate category of 'particularly extraordinary' events, beyond 'extraordinary circumstances', which would lead to the air carrier being exempted from all its obligations under the regulation."

"...the court did give some relief to the airlines, by stating that they "may pass on the costs incurred as a result of that obligation to airline ticket prices".

The question is why haven't they been doing that? Shouldn't airlines understand their legal liabilities and factor the cost into their overheads? Presumably airlines are able to buy insurance just as easily and perhaps more cheaply than passengers?

Sober Lark
31st Jan 2013, 18:58
The airlines will self-insure against 'extraordinary circumstances' but I'd say it will be a brave person who decides to close air space in a hurry next time.

Does anyone have a link to the wording of today's judgement?

JetMender
31st Jan 2013, 19:00
This ruling plus EU261 will lead to ticket prices increasing for everyone & may lead to some airlines folding if there are excessive successful claims (backdated for 6 years).

Loose rivets
31st Jan 2013, 20:16
PS. Mind you, I bet he regrets taking a measly £900 claim to court, and for that - serves him right!


sooty, Since he'd already paid millions in claims, I think he may well have separated this one from the pack and used it as a test case.


There might be a case for passengers being able to purchase delay insurance. A "We take full responsibility until you're there" V "If you're stuck, don't come moaning to us."

AtomKraft
31st Jan 2013, 20:50
I think this is a good decision.

When you sell someone a ticket- you should take ownership of the job. If you can't fly them for some reason (whether or not that reason is under your control) you should 'look after' them if they get stuck.

Of course, there is a cost to this- for ALL airlines.

So put the bloody prices up a bit!

They're far too low at the moment anyway, and in this case ALL airlines can add a bit to allow for their 'duty of care' towards their customers.

Charging folk a fiver to go to bloody Poland is just stupid.

SeenItAll
31st Jan 2013, 20:55
In the US, airlines are uniformly not responsible for customer expenses due to weather-caused delays and cancellations. Is this different in the EU? If a huge storm shuts down my destination airport, is the airline responsible for accommodating me until it reopens?

I would think that volcanic eruptions should be considered the same as unfortunate weather.

Good Business Sense
31st Jan 2013, 21:01
...... earthquake, tsunami, ..... meteorite ...... where is this all going to stop !

Europe is slowly grinding to a halt. You'd have to be insane to start a business these days between the banks, health and safety, the service from public servants, including the Campaign Against Aviation, and now ... the wrath of god !

Tableview
31st Jan 2013, 21:09
I have nothing but contempt for Ryanair but I have much, much more contempt for the EU.
What a bunch of fools.

I couldn't have put it better myself, at least not in words that wouldn't get me a ban here!

EnxAero
31st Jan 2013, 23:21
To be honest I quite agree with ATC Watcher. If the airlines did not have pay any of the expenses they would not have any incentive to get you to your destination whenever the circumstances improve.
So imagine the airport closes for two days, and there is one airline that flies there once per day with an 80% occupancy. Once the airport reopens, It would take more than a week to clear up the backlog unless schedule extra flights. You may arrive to your destination after your original return date, and to make things worst, the airline may refuse to refund the return leg because “the return flight operated as scheduled, and you did not arrive to the airport in time” (it happened to me as well).

CelticRambler
31st Jan 2013, 23:59
When you sell someone a ticket- you should take ownership of the job. If you can't fly them for some reason (whether or not that reason is under your control) you should 'look after' them if they get stuck.

That's all very well if you're selling an extended stay in a faraway place with the flights to get you there and back included. In the old days, Jack and Jill went to a travel agent to sort out their trip to the top of the hill. Now they like to save money by booking all the bits themselves.

Seeing as Ryanair most other airlines these days are selling one-way tickets to private individuals and nothing in-between, why should they be held responsible for Jack and Jill's failure to evaluate the risk of their return travel being disrupted and decide on an adequate level of protection?

Besides, assigning responsibility for any kind of disruption to the airlines in this way is discriminatory because some of the passengers on any affected flight will be on their outward journey. What claim for compensation can they make?

I heard the Ryanair spokesman's interview this afternoon. It sounded to me like this was a 900€ claim that they're quite pleased about - because it paves the way for Ryanair to go head-to-head with (for example) French unions going on strike and expecting MO'L to pick up the tab for conditions that really are not at all exceptional. I smell blood. :E

Ixixly
1st Feb 2013, 07:04
AtomKraft, are you insane? So you're car that you expect to drive on the road is unable to get you from A to B because the weather has turned bad and the rain is far too heavy to be driving through, will you then go sue your Car Manufacturer for selling you a vehicle that was not able to convey you where you wanted to go when you wanted to go? Absolutely not, because that would be ridiculous.

The airlines did the right thing by grounding their aircraft due to safety. Those who had bought properly priced tickets with reputable Airlines were most likely looked after, those who paid Sweet F*** All for their ticket and expected to have everything thrown in anyway got SFA, funny thing that!!

These idiots want to pay less for the airfare than the cost of the taxi to get them to the airport and then whinge and b***h and moan when it turns out their ticket doesn't include any of the stuff, like covering costs for delays, that higher prices tickets and/or insurance would cover.

ExXB
1st Feb 2013, 10:00
Some points;

Cryan charges £2/2€ per passenger ticket to cover the cost of their obligations under Regulation 261. They say they carried 79.6 million last year but that's passenger sectors (average ticket is out and back) so actual number of surcharges would be half that. Say €40 million. Even with the Volcano their expenses cannot be anything like this.

When the regulation was being written nobody (airlines/EC/EP) considered that a multi-day closure of airspace was even possible. Never happened before. (The Regulation is being considered for amendment by EC/EP and it could include, in hindsight, such provisions but don't hold your breath)

The Courts have agreed that the closure was an 'extraordinary circumstances' meaning that compensation for cancellation (€200~600) was not applicable. The courts have ruled correctly that, as written, the airlines do have an obligation for care (reasonable cost of meals and accommodation) and rebooking/ rerouting.

Yes the railroads have a similar obligation; See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:315:0014:0041:EN:PDF . Article 18 2 (b) clearly states an obligation to cover hotel costs for a stay of 'one or more' nights. I know the Swiss Federal Railroad regularly covers hotel costs when connections to last services are missed.

The airlines in theory could insure against these costs, but I don't know of any that actually do. Insurance companies expect to receive more in premiums than they pay out in costs. This means that even if it was offered it would be so expensive that no airline would be tempted. (The insurance companies would set their premiums based on a worst-case scenario - something like what happened in 2010)

Perhaps passengers could buy their own insurance, but I doubt if they could find a policy that covers all-risks. And why would they (to/from/within EU)? The EU requires the airline to cover these costs.

What I expect we will see now is other airlines adopting Cryan's '261 Surcharge'. Great money maker and would more than likely offset the costs they are required to cover, by law.

Tableview
1st Feb 2013, 10:14
The airlines did the right thing by grounding their aircraft due to safety. Those who had bought properly priced tickets with reputable Airlines were most likely looked after, those who paid Sweet F*** All for their ticket and expected to have everything thrown in anyway got SFA, funny thing that!!

The airlines had no choice. Airspace was closed.

As it happens, I, along with tens of thousands of others, was stranded in London at the time. I happened to be doing some work for an airline. They looked after me magnificently, offering to extend my contract until I could leave, and putting me up at their expense in a world class London hotel.

I had a flight out on EZY, which was cancelled. When airspace opened, I booked first available to my destination, on another carrier. I got a full refund of my ticket from EZY, plus my out of pocket accommodation expenses until they were picked up by the other airline.

I realise that had I been flying on Ryanair I would be telling a very different story. That's why I won't fly Ryanair.

Sober Lark
1st Feb 2013, 11:17
Is there any possibility we could use this friendly thread to explore the pros and cons of this EU ruling and how it affects the airline industry as a whole without the tiresome chirping of the Ryanair bashing brigade?

The official press release for the 31 Jan ruling can be found here http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2013-01/cp130008en.pdf

tb10er
1st Feb 2013, 11:32
I can't wait for the day when solicitors and claims companys are waiting outside the Arrivals area with a board saying "Have you been delayed?".

It's bad enough being bombarded with the phone calls from so-called accident companys who "care about your well-being" and that "there is money for you".:ugh:

TractorBoy
1st Feb 2013, 11:58
I've been reading the EC directive 261 (exciting I know :eek:) and Article 5 clearly states that in the event of cancellation, a passenger is entitled to assistance and compensation (Articles 9 and 7).

Article 7 includes;

3. An operating air carrier shall not be obliged to pay
compensation in accordance with Article 7, if it can prove that
the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances
which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable
measures had been taken.

But article 9 does not.


However, in the initial preamble the following 2 paragraphs are

14) As under the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating
air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases
where an event has been caused by extraordinary
circumstances which could not have been avoided even
if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances
may, in particular, occur in cases of political
instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with
the operation of the flight concerned, security risks,
unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that
affect the operation of an operating air carrier.

(15) Extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist
where the impact of an air traffic management decision
in relation to a particular aircraft on a particular day
gives rise to a long delay, an overnight delay, or the
cancellation of one or more flights by that aircraft, even
though all reasonable measures had been taken by the
air carrier concerned to avoid the delays or cancellations.


Surely this would cover it as well..... It looks like the judges have totally ignored the initial sections.

ExXB
1st Feb 2013, 13:21
Tb10erI can't wait for the day when solicitors and claims companys are waiting outside the Arrivals area with a board saying "Have you been delayed?".


There would be no point, as the Regulation only talks about delays in departure, not arrival. Contrast that with the rail Regulation (linked above) which refers to both. :ugh:

ExXB
1st Feb 2013, 13:37
TractorBoy

The preamble to the Regulation has no legal force, it is taken as guidance by the court but it is not binding.

And it doesn't matter, decisions of the ECJ are final and cannot be appealed. (Although Courts in member states have asked the ECJ to reconsider decisions, but there is no requirement that they do so)

Compensation was always considered as a punitive measure, intended to stop those nasty airlines from cancelling flights for commercial reasons. If the cancellation was caused for reasons outside their control (ie extraordinary circumstances) then compensation shouldn't apply. However the EC/EP intentionally did not extend the exclusion to the duty of care (or to denied boarding, for that matter).

TractorBoy
1st Feb 2013, 13:43
TractorBoy

The preamble to the Regulation has no legal force, it is taken as guidance by the court but it is not binding.



Thanks for the clarification.

Then as the directive stands, Ryanair should have stumped up in the first place.

I still sympathise with MoL's situation as it does seem daft, but its in black and white.

Edit : But wouldn't the Montreal Convention apply here? Or does EU261 override it?

The SSK
1st Feb 2013, 13:44
Regulation 261 had its origins in 1999, when the then Transport Commissioner Loyola De Palacio decided to do something about the airlines’ habit of bumping overbooked passengers. There was already a Regulation in place, with denied boarding compensation levels about half what they are now, but it had not been particularly effectual.

De Palacio actually wanted to outlaw overbooking, but was persuaded that a significant proportion of overbookings were caused by the practice of guaranteeing passengers who had missed their connection a seat on the next available flight – whether it was full or not. Since ATC delays were endemic at the time and the Single Sky project was gathering political momentum, this argument was taken on board.

However, it didn’t help that De Palacio’s chef de cabinet was bumped three times in quick succession (by the same airline, once with his family:ugh:) so it was decided to ‘teach the airlines a lesson’ by upping the compensation levels massively – the proposal was that they should be double what they are now, i.e. to a maximum of €1200.

The airlines, predictably screamed blue murder, both at the punitive levels and the fact that the proposal had not gone through the usual consultative processes.

Then along came 9/11 and the financial pain the airlines went through in its immediate aftermath. Unable to help materially, the European Commission nevertheless agreed to shelve the DBC regulation, along with some other potentially damaging legislation.

Then at the end of 2001, totally unconnected with DBC, the airlines were making a fuss about the Galileo European GPS project. They didn’t want it and they didn’t need it, but they were the ones who would be paying for it. Trouble was, Galileo was a pet project of the EU and the EU didn’t like their pet project being rubbished. So a senior mandarin in the Transport Directorate decided to ‘punish’ (his own word) the airlines by dusting off the DBC proposal and reintroducing it into the legislative process.

Along the way, the proposal, which originally had been limited to denied boarding due to overbooking, extended the compensation provisions to cancellations for commercial reasons (i.e. lightly booked flights) and also a duty of care in the case of delays. The compensation levels were established at the current €250/400/600.

This was something the airlines (at least the established ones) could live with. It was already standard practice to give out meal vouchers in the case of long delays, and eventually to offer a night’s hotel. Commercial cancellations were not commonplace anyway and the higher DBC levels were rationalised as being in line with inflation compared to the existing ones which had been around for about ten years.

In any case, the proposal had to get past the Member States in order to become law. Some were in favour, some against and some were in the middle. The airlines did their sums and reckoned the proposal would be defeated – just. They didn’t reckon with the realities of EU politics, however. The Portuguese, who were among the waverers, were offered a bridge or some other big engineering project if they would vote Yes. Then when it came to the vote the Austrian minister switched from Yes to No when it dawned on her that she would be standing in upcoming elections and didn’t want any taint of anti-consumerism on her record.

So R261 was enacted in 2004. It cannot be emphasised too strongly that the intentions of its framers were (a) to punish perceived malpractice (overbooking and commercial cancellation) and (b) to institutionalise what the best airlines did anyway, in terms of duty of care. There was never any intention to ‘illegalise’ aircraft unserviceability or to extend the concept of Denied Boarding to delays.

But the drafting of 261 was terrible, and so was the hype that the EU spun around it. They allowed passengers to believe they would get ‘compensation’ for delays and there was understandable frustration when they discovered they couldn't. The definition of exceptional/unforeseeable/unavoidable circumstances was vague. And the potential rewards for successful claims (a planeload at a time) was a magnet for quasi-legal middlemen looking to make easy money. Hence the string of cases referred to ECJ, who know squat about the way airlines operate and do not apply consultative processes to arrive at their decisions.

Returning to the original intention of R261; if an airline got its overbooking profile wrong it might have, say, three bumped passengers on a full flight – total compensation €1800 for longhaul. Or, let’s say, ten passengers on a cancelled 737 - €2500. What we are looking at now is the prospect of a quarter-million euro liability for a cancelled or heavily delayed 747 or A380 (double that if the return leg is affected). The reasons for the event could me many and varied – a catering truck could impact a trailing edge, an accumulation of little factors could lead to a crew going out of hours. No airline is going to stump up a quarter of a million if they think somebody else is to blame. I oredict that the majority of such cases will go to litigation – there is only going to be one winner in this – the lawyers.

PAXboy
1st Feb 2013, 15:22
Thanks The SSK, a very helpful explanation of history, unintended consequences and the worst kind of 'office' that thinks it knows better than the 'shop floor'.

wiggy
1st Feb 2013, 15:23
Reg 261, the background (warning, long)

No need for the warning, that was very informative, thanks.

Sober Lark
1st Feb 2013, 17:35
Nice posting The SKK. What if the airline doesn't have a registered business address in the EU?

GrahamO
1st Feb 2013, 20:24
The insurance industry should have picked up the tab here, and not MOL or any airline.

The airline should be carrying appropriate insurance against its failure to deliver what it agreed to provide.

If you hired a car and it wasn't available, you'd reasonably expect the car hire firm to sort it out and for you to not have to take out your own insurance to cover the failures of others.

Thats my view anyway.

CARR30
2nd Feb 2013, 09:20
If you hired a car and it wasn't available, you'd reasonably expect the car hire firm to sort it out and for you to not have to take out your own insurance to cover the failures of others.

So if the car hire firm was unable to supply a car because car hire was banned following an environmental disaster then they should be expected to look after you until car hire became permissible again? Well that's a lot less bother than worrying about old-fashioned travel and credit card insurance.

Life is becoming wonderful as our sense of entitlement rises to the point where our every setback is for someone else to wear.

ExXB
2nd Feb 2013, 12:35
Nice posting The SKK. What if the airline doesn't have a registered business address in the EU?

The Regulation applies to ALL flights departing from an EU airport regardless of where an airline may have a registered business address. It also applies to all EU airlines' flights to an EU airport.

ExXB
2nd Feb 2013, 12:39
The airline should be carrying appropriate insurance against its failure to deliver what it agreed to provide.

Good luck finding such insurance. It simply isn't available and if it was it would not be at a reasonable cost. As a result the airlines 'self-insure'. i.e. they don't give money to an insurance company, but pay out valid claims from their own reserves.

Sober Lark
2nd Feb 2013, 14:49
ExXB thanks for clarifying that point. If I was flying out and back DUB-JFK with say EI and my return flight was cancelled because the aircraft was 'stranded' in DUB would EI still have the duty of care even though I am a stranded passenger who is outside of the EU?

ExXB
2nd Feb 2013, 15:16
ExXB thanks for clarifying that point. If I was flying out and back DUB-JFK with say EI and my return flight was cancelled because the aircraft was 'stranded' in DUB would EI still have the duty of care even though I am a stranded passenger who is outside of the EU?

Yes. Article 3;

Scope
1. This Regulation shall apply:
(a) to passengers departing from an airport located in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies;
(b) to passengers departing from an airport located in a third country to an airport situated in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies, ... if the operating air carrier of the flight concerned is a Community carrier.

Note 'operating air carrier' - if code share flight is operated by non-EU airline they are not compelled by this regulation to provide care, although they may do so as a matter of policy.

Also this regulation also applies to Norway, Iceland and Switzerland on the same basis.

Sober Lark
2nd Feb 2013, 16:47
You're a mine of information ExXB thank you.

Article 3;(b)

Am I reading what you say correctly when I state Article 3(b) offers me assistance on a through ticket with SQ who ticket me DUB-LHR on EI and LHR-SIN on SQ but I'm not covered on the way back? If EI don't run the LHR-DUB sector, SQ are not compelled by this regulation to provide care, although they may do so as a matter of policy so in this case EI don't have to worry about Article 3.

GrahamO
2nd Feb 2013, 18:19
Good luck finding such insurance. It simply isn't available and if it was it would not be at a reasonable cost. As a result the airlines 'self-insure'. i.e. they don't give money to an insurance company, but pay out valid claims from their own reserves.

fair enough, but thats their choice. Its one of the risk of taking folks money to deliver something which you may not be able to insure against. I do however disbelieve that an airline cannot get insurance at a reasonable price - its just that they don't want to buy anything that would increase their fixed cost base. And thats entirely their choice.

So if the car hire firm was unable to supply a car because car hire was banned following an environmental disaster then they should be expected to look after you until car hire became permissible again? Well that's a lot less bother than worrying about old-fashioned travel and credit card insurance.

Yes they should. Thats assuming that there were no alternative travel methods of course, so my example was poor.

If a business is going to take someones money for doing something, then they should not expect others to suffer because they cannot deliver against insurable risks. If they don't want to pay the insurance costs, then its not reasonable to expect to take folks money and just say 'tough luck'.

PAXboy
2nd Feb 2013, 19:56
GrahamOIf a business is going to take someones money for doing something, then they should not expect others to suffer because they cannot deliver against insurable risks. If they don't want to pay the insurance costs, then its not reasonable to expect to take folks money and just say 'tough luck'In an ideal world = Yes. But your competitor will choose to have no insurance, change the wording of their website to make it clear - and then lower prices.

The next company will cut out the radio/cd and lower prices ...

What do you do? :hmm:

In the airline world - that is the story of the last 20 years and we are STILL spiralling downwards! :(

ExXB
3rd Feb 2013, 07:46
You're a mine of information ExXB thank you.

Article 3;(b)

Am I reading what you say correctly when I state Article 3(b) offers me assistance on a through ticket with SQ who ticket me DUB-LHR on EI and LHR-SIN on SQ but I'm not covered on the way back? If EI don't run the LHR-DUB sector, SQ so in this case EI don't have to worry about Article 3.

:confused: The Regulation applies to all EI flights (unless they have a flight between two non-EU airports, which I don't think they do).

On a journey DUB EI LHR SQ SIN SQ LHR EI DUB the Regulation applies to all flights, except the SQ flight SIN-LHR. That does not mean SQ doesn't provide care in some or all circumstances, just that they are not compelled to.

Espada III
3rd Feb 2013, 20:39
I find it amazing that sensible people still think that any problem they encounter has to be the fault of someone and that compensation can be claimed.

It was not Ryanair's fault that the airspace was closed. If you were at your home airport you could have gone home and if you were away you were stranded, but that is not Ryanair's fault. Yes, perhaps more could have been done voluntarily by airlines, but they do not have bottomless bank accounts and with a lost cost airline, you expect minimal service over and above what you have paid for.

I once ordered a specific type of rental car for a family of five plus large amounts of luggage. When I got to the desk I was given a much smaller car and the excuse was pitiful. I got annoyed and eventually it was swapped over. But, as has been said before, if the authorities had banned driving how could I expect the rental company to help me?

ExXB
4th Feb 2013, 08:01
This isn't about compensation, this is about care. Compensation is payable in some cases for delays, cancellations and denied boardings. Everyone agrees that compensation was not applicable for incidents resulting from the volcanic cloud.

Care, on the other hand, is something the vast majority of network airlines used to provide without a second thought. (Yes, there were always exceptions to this practice). The Regulators in Brussels considered practices of non-network airlines to be unfair since they didn't do the same thing. As this Regulation was being introduced the network airlines were nonplussed with these rules as they provided care anyway and, although nobody said so, they were happy to see some of the LCCs cost advantages being reduced. The LCCs hated this idea and fought bitterly. They lost.

So, airlines have an obligation to take care of their passengers regardless of the reasons for the incident. There is no time limit to such obligation written into the regulation, nor do I think there ever will be one. Delays of more than 24/48/72 hours are not common, but they do exist.

As noted above Cranair assesses all of their passengers a €2/£2 surcharge allegedly to cover these costs. My personal view is that they are overcharging for this and are being disingenuous if not deceptive (by blaming the Regulator for this charge) However in doing so they are self-insuring for these known and legally binding costs.

What did Cryanair get out of this? Simple, free publicity from the media in another feeding frenzy.

Sober Lark
4th Feb 2013, 15:33
In all sincerity I wouldn't have claimed for the ash cloud but put me down in a desert for 10 hours and blame it on an 'Act of God', is a horse of a different colour.

When a person insures some almost believe they have a right to receive back in claims each year at least what they have contributed. It is almost a feeling of entitlement to claim and to exaggerate such a claim.

With this new ruling we could create the danger where the travelling public will choose not to insure because they believe someone else will always pick up the bill if things go wrong.

Self-insurance may be one option for the airlines but some of the events the airlines will have to cover are not at all predictable and the aggregate effect of several losses, could have the same affect as a catastrophic loss particularly in the early years after formation of the fund. Imagine an airline that finds themselves under financial pressure, wouldn't they be tempted to borrow from the funds? On the other hand airlines that are doing well won't appreciate having to have capital tied up. Also I think the contributions made towards a fund for self insurance purposes may not qualify for corporation tax relief.

The purpose of insurance is to spread the risk and I think the travelling public have an obligation to insure themselves. There are new risks that have to be covered and insurers will develop new products to cover it.

In all fairness I can't see how you can't have a no limit duty of care that the airlines must now work to.

ExXB
4th Feb 2013, 18:31
Actually a diversion, to a desert or elsewhere, is not covered by 261. As long as your flight left within 3 hours of scheduled departure time, that is.

occasional
4th Feb 2013, 19:27
I think the travelling public have an obligation to insure themselves.

I would not normally consider taking out insurance, simply because a substantial proportion of the insurers that I have dealt with have proven to be dishonest.

Sober Lark
4th Feb 2013, 19:41
So assuming we don't insure and leave it all up to the airlines to cover us what additional charges do you think airlines will pass on to their customers?

occasional
6th Feb 2013, 07:32
So assuming we don't insure and leave it all up to the airlines to cover us what additional charges do you think airlines will pass on to their customers?

If we are being rational, airports as much as airlines, would have an appropriate duty of care.

Airports are in a far better position to organise such things so they would probably end up providing a service to airlines even when an airline was responsible for the failure.

Given that such a system could be a lot more efficient there might be no requirement to charge anybody.

The SSK
6th Feb 2013, 08:10
In the event of e.g. massive snow cancellations, major airports can normally conjure up camp beds, blankets etc. It’s not their responsibility – under R261 the airlines should already have bussed their stranded passengers off to nice cosy hotels, but it’s yet another measure of the madness of R261 that it assumes that hotel rooms can be found for 5000 passengers caught in a whiteout.

I think you can reasonably assume that the cost of the camp beds and blankets will be passed on to the airport’s customers – i.e. the airlines – through their charging system … and consequently into the airlines’ pricing system.

ExXB
6th Feb 2013, 08:46
Be careful what you wish for.

Under a different Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 of the Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 concerning the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air.) airports are given the responsibility to care for a PRM from their arrival at the airport to the door of the aircraft and vv.

Airlines are mostly unhappy with the costs and, at some airports, with the level of service their customers receive. Meanwhile NGOs representing PRMs are attempting to have the Regulation strengthened. The Regulation allows airports to pass along their costs to the airlines, but these charges are not regulated. Often a monopoly provider charging monopoly rents.

This Regulation came about because some airlines did not view that taking care of PRMs (Passengers with Reduced Mobility) was their responsibility - even though the network airlines for many years had done exactly that. (BTW, does this sound familiar? - drag the LCCs up to the level of network airlines.)

Cryanair also charges for 1107/2006. €0.50/£0.50 per flight - or another €40 million a year (based on their claim of 79.6 m pax per year). They, to my knowledge, have never justified that this fee has any relationship to their actual costs.

You can find all of their non-optional costs here (http://www.ryanair.com/index.php/en/questions/what-is-covered-by-taxes-fees-and-charges-in-my-reservation).

PAXboy
7th Feb 2013, 16:00
When considering what will be the trigger for the next BIG unscheduled air space closure? Consider: BBC News - UK 'can cope with solar superstorm' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21357909)

But the experts stress that it is the sum of a number of issues all happening at once rather than one or two big calamities that will test society's ability to cope.


"It will be perhaps comparable to the Icelandic volcano eruption [in 2010], or something similar, where there will be severe disruption to our way of life for a while, but it will be something we believe we can deal with," Prof Paul Cannon, the report chairman, told BBC News.
My emphasis.

GrahamO
7th Feb 2013, 20:17
But, as has been said before, if the authorities had banned driving how could I expect the rental company to help me?

Its a poor example as you are not renting an aircraft to get yourself to a destination, so a comparison is not equivalent. You are effectively paying for a company who just happen to have aircraft at hand, to provide an all in service to some distant point. Thats not the same as renting an aircraft. They can rent you an aircraft, but its not their fault that you will not be granted takeoff and thats not the rental company's problem.

However if say a ban on driving were introduced, and you had booked a chauffeur service, you would insist that the company provides you with suitable alternative means, such as a mix of bus, coach, air, or rail transport.

There's a difference between buying a DIY product and paying for a full service.

Sober Lark
8th Feb 2013, 06:42
Regarding the published list of 'non optional' costs, it seems reasonable that if a charge has to be imposed the collector shouldn't be expected to collect, administer and pass on the payment free of charge.

ExXB
8th Feb 2013, 09:48
I agree the taxes shouldn't be collected free of charge (but they are). These are fixed costs imposed by governments which are being passed on to the consumer.

The remainder: Passenger Service Charge/Airport tax (Tax? I didn't know airports could impose taxes); Aviation Insurance Levy;
PRM Levy; Flight Delay/Cancellation Levy (EU261); ETS (Emission Trading Scheme) Levy; Administration Fee are all charges imposed by FR. These are not charges imposed by governments, airports or other third parties which are then passed on to the consumer. The amounts are determined by FR and (excluding the PSC) are at least £14.74/€14.74 per flight.

It's ironic that Mr O'Leary, who is well known crowing "No Fuel Surcharges" goes along with all of these surcharges - which have exactly the same purpose. They should be included in the fare, not added as extras (as should fuel surcharges)

Oh, and they do apply an interesting £/€ rate. (BSR is currently 0.85)

They are not the only ones, I'm not picking on just them - but they do offer one of the better targets.

Sober Lark
8th Feb 2013, 11:29
Just did a dummy quote on Ryanair's site and the fare they quoted is the fare I'm being asked to pay which seems fair enough to me. I assume there is a strong element of them rounding up some of the levies below to provide a contingency fund and / or to profit from the various 'impositions', but the bottom line is they said the airfare would be EUR 72.13 and I could have paid EUR72.13 if I had a debit card.

Going Out23/02/2013 06:25
Dublin T1 » London-Stansted

Fare: (https://www.bookryanair.com/SkySales/booking.aspx?culture=en-ie&lc=en-ie&cmpid2=www.pprune.org#)22.99 EUR1 x Adult22.99 EUREU 261 Levy:2.00 EUROnline Check-in :6.00 EURETS Levy:0.25 EURAdministration Fee:6.00 EURTaxes/Fees: (https://www.bookryanair.com/SkySales/booking.aspx?culture=en-ie&lc=en-ie&cmpid2=www.pprune.org#)34.89 EURAviation Insurance/PRM Levy:6.49 EURIrish Travel Tax:3.00 EURIrish Passenger Service Fee PSC:25.40 EURCredit Card Fee:1.44 EURTotal Price:73.57 EUR

PAXboy
8th Feb 2013, 17:18
ExXBIt's ironic that Mr O'Leary, who is well known crowing "No Fuel Surcharges" goes along with all of these surcharges - which have exactly the same purpose. They should be included in the fare, not added as extras (as should fuel surcharges)As I understand it:


The unavoidables have to be itemised for transparency.
As far as FR are concerned, they like to show how much is NOT their charges.
FR just LOVE collecting these taxes, as the money is in their account for a period of time before they have to deliver it to the govt. Whilst interest rates may not be high - at the volumes of cash swilling through their accounts? One might almost say 'Every Little Helps'. :p

Capot
9th Feb 2013, 12:55
The cat has been out of the bag for years about all these invented "additional" charges that increase a "headline" fare of 22.99 Euros to a real fare of 73.57 Euros.

The cat has also been out of the bag for years about Ryanir's claims to be a "cheap" airline; anyone who still believes that should look at their average yield per passenger (Google their latest accounts.) On some short-haul routes it was, last time I looked, the highest among all the airlines on those routes, including BA. (Mind you we are not comparing like with like; the FR route is usually to the middle of nowhere while the other carriers go to the declared destination.)

However, Ryanair provides a safe and frequent service that people, nearly all of whom are quite capable of working out the true cost, still buy instead of cheaper alternatives, or in the absence of cheaper alternatives they still buy to get to places that only Ryanair serves.

My question is, why the hell does Ryanair bother with all that insane nonsense about invented levies, taxes, this, that and the sodding other.

I know every airline does it, and that one or two are unavoidable levies. But Ryanair is worse than anyone else, and it's totally unnecessary, because there cannot, surely, be anyone who is still fooled by it.

Just put the total fare up front, and we'll pay it if we need to use your services, Mr Leary. If we don't, we won't, and pretending for a few moments, as we plod through your intermineable, convoluted website, that it costs 1/4 of the actual figure isn't going to change that.

WE ARE NOT AS STUPID AS YOU THINK WE ARE!

PAXboy
9th Feb 2013, 13:34
The company based it's whole starting strategy (after the appt of MoL) on the key tenets of:


Bluster
Shout about the costs everyone else is imposing
Get money from the airports and all sorts of new places
Portray themselves as the 'little guy' and the 'good guy'
Bluster

Having done that with remarkable success (from 1992) they absolutely CANNOT now change. Even when MoL goes (for whatever reason) the ethos is built into every single layer of mgmt and staff - to change all of them? Besides, since they have made so much money, who would risk changing the formula? That is not to say I agree with them - but change? Not going to happen any more than Tony Blair is going to apologise for making war. once a company has been formed in a particular way it is 90% impossible to change it.

As to anyone still fooled - I agree that number will be dropping but they are STILL often cheaper if you book right and the new generations of 18 something being let loose by their parents are going to go for it. They don't mind a bit of hassle as they have no money. MoL doesn't care if they are fooled - as long as they book. That is all that his ego needs.

Lastly, FR is now a mature business and so they have to find new ways to keep expanding, such as the EI game. It is always fascinating to watch them.

SLF3
12th Feb 2013, 08:15
This is an insurable risk. Airlines can either buy the appropriate insurance or take the risk onto their balance sheet.

The practical reality is that most travellers these days (particularly families) cannot afford the costs of a ten day delay getting home from the other side of the world, and don't have the time / knowledge to wade through the small print that allows an insurance company to avoid it's responsibilities.

Governments have decided that for the greater good airlines should manage this issue - and it is probably the cheapest and most expedient way for passengers to be protected.

The real issue is why airlines feel they don't need to comply with the law.

occasional
12th Feb 2013, 08:50
Governments have decided that for the greater good airlines should manage this issue - and it is probably the cheapest and most expedient way for passengers to be protected.

As a passenger it appears to me to be a very inefficient way to protect passengers.

It would be far more efficient if airports, which are on the spot and have the relevant local knowledge, provided the backbone of the system - twenty airlines trying to book hotels simultaneously is hardly likely to be an efficient process.

There is no reason to insist that airlines have to use the airport service.

SLF3
12th Feb 2013, 11:21
The airline has a contractual relationship with the passenger: the airport does not.

RevMan2
12th Feb 2013, 11:42
If an unusually high concentration of volcanic ash in the atmosphere that prevents flying( Eyjafjallajökull, 2010) is NOT an Act of god (as per the ECJ) and thus the airlines' (insurable) risk, doesn't Nemo 2013 (an unusually high concentration of ice crystals in the atmosphere that prevents flying) fall into the same category?

The SSK
12th Feb 2013, 11:44
OK, let’s see …

You have bought tickets for the upcoming Man Utd/Arsenal game. It’s postponed because the pitch is under two feet of snow.

Do you:
(a) Get a refund on your ticket?
(b) Have your ticket revalidated for a later date?
(c) Expect hotel accommodation and three meals a day until the match is re-staged?

GrahamO
12th Feb 2013, 15:17
What a pathetic attempt to draw a parallel between folks stuck in an overseas airport with no way of getting home, paying for a hotel etc and watching a football game. The ticket you buy for a game comes 'sans travel' so how you get there is what you do outside of the 90 minutes you have paid to watch are utterly irrelevant.

You've clearly lost the argument if that the best you can come up with, especially as most people couldn't be paid to watch either of those teams regardless of location.

Feeble attempt on your part.

The SSK
12th Feb 2013, 15:28
And just where, pray, does 261 refer to 'stuck in an overseas airport?

CelticRambler
12th Feb 2013, 16:12
folks stuck in an overseas airport with no way of getting home

You are only "stuck in an overseas airport with no way of getting home" if you've booked and paid for a complete travel package. That is where none of this makes sense any more, because very few people do that and even fewer airlines sell "return" fares. You buy a single journey - maybe or maybe not in conjunction with another single journey in the opposite direction - so the airline should have no particular reason to compensate any traveller for the fact that he or she decided to stray so far from home that he has "no way" of getting back, other than providing a replacement service at the earliest possible opportunity.

ExXB
12th Feb 2013, 17:58
If an unusually high concentration of volcanic ash in the atmosphere that prevents flying( Eyjafjallajökull, 2010) is NOT an Act of god (as per the ECJ) and thus the airlines' (insurable) risk, doesn't Nemo 2013 (an unusually high concentration of ice crystals in the atmosphere that prevents flying) fall into the same category?

Weather delays ARE considered to be an exceptional circumstance and COMPENSATION for delay/cancellation are not payable. However there is no waiving of the duty for care FOR ANY REASON, including Nemo. EU airlines must provide care for (almost) all of their flights. The only exception being sectors between two non EU airports (Virgin, for example, between SYD and HKG).

Sorry for shouting, it's bad form, but we need to be clear - this ruling is about the duty for care contained in Regulation 261, not about cash compensation.

RevMan2
12th Feb 2013, 18:11
And a volcanic eruption is NOT exceptional - almost an everyday occurence, now I come to think of it.
I think I've understood.....

GrahamO
13th Feb 2013, 14:37
And just where, pray, does 261 refer to 'stuck in an overseas airport?

In the same place as your ridiculous attempt to draw a parallel between the air regulations and buying a ticket for a football match.

You're getting childish now, time for you to go to bed I think.

The SSK
15th Feb 2013, 09:13
Well, that's me firmly put in my place, isn't it. There seems to be no arguing with the 'entitlement culture'.

Zzzzzzzzzz

SLF3
15th Feb 2013, 12:58
Nothing to do with entitlement - just cheap insurance mandated by government and paid for through the ticket.

Trust you slept well.