Two questions, asked by very few people (except MOL of course) are:
1. Why should the level of compensation exceed the cost of the product?
2. Why should this apply to air travel only?
I know of no other industry that can be penalised so heavily when the supplier (the airlines) has so little control over the elements that go to make up the product.
More worryingly, one aspect of this is ruling that we haven't had to deal with yet is the the effect of "unintended consequences." The most minor manifestation of this would be a crew accepting and aircraft with a minor defect that should be written up but isn't. Instead it's noticed "in flight" and written up on arrival where there is engineering support. Unfortunately, it also does not take much imagination to think of a scenario where an aircraft is grounded due to a major techincal problem and pressure is put on an engineer or flight crew to sign the aircraft off because to do otherwise might bankrupt the operator.
And why can't I claim for delays due to traffic jams, late buses, slow lifts etc? Rail travelers can claim 20% of the fare payable and these claims have to be made within 28 days of the event and may be payable in vouchers. With ferries, again the compensation is linked to the ticket price. If you look at the equivalent of a long haul journey (an eight to 24 hour journey), ie. with a six hour delay only 50% of the fare is payable but for an airline €600 is payable for a four hour delay, no matter what was paid for the ticket. Therefore it has to be assumed that the EU is discriminating heavily against airlines.
Who will bleat the most when the next airline goes to the wall, stranding passengers with no flights and no hope of compensation? I hope they remember to blame the EU.
PM