Originally Posted by
Dannyboy39
He has a very strong argument in my opinion, however all that will happen is the taxpayer footing the bill eventually. The Treasury paying out £10Ms to a company already making several billion in profit isn’t going to look great optically.
Does he have a strong argument?
Currently the "system" places the obligation to look after customers onto the airline, that obligation is limited in cases such as this one. Airlines know they have that obligation and have the opportunity to price that risk and factor it into the ticket price. Whether they do is entirely a business decision on their part, ATC failures are not unheard of so they can hardly claim them to be a total surprise when they happen.
In the UK at least the ANSP doesn't have that obligation and hasn't had the opportunity to price that risk and factor it into the fees.
I don't think it is right to change the rules of the game half way through even if you think the rules are wrong. If you want to change the rules you have to allow the parties to change their game plan based on the new rules. That would mean a discussion on what ATC fees should be to allow the ANSP to price in that risk.
Discuss