Originally Posted by
RevMan2
The rationale behind 261 was to dis-incent airlines from overbooking flights inordinately and inconveniencing passengers without adequate compensation.
The "they cancel flights due to low loads" is a red-herring. Might have been the case before advanced network planning when an aircraft and crew did A-B-A-B-A all day, but the network impact of a cancellation in today's environment is severe, to say the least. As a previous poster wrote, the difference in cancellation levels pre- and post-261 is static.
I assume that we all understand the concept of MTBF/MTTR and we all accept that complex systems are unlikely to operate unimpaired until obsolescence.
So do we expect a manufacturer to compensate us if an out-of-warranty vehicle refuses to start? Do we expect the same for a refrigerator manufacturer and do we SERIOUSLY expect consequential damages for spoiled food?
I do wish that people would put on their Captain Sensible caps and accept that a) we live with risk b) there's not always blame to be apportioned and c) "life is a box of chocolates; you never know what you are going to get."
By all means compensate Denied Boardings, but don't seriously tell me that bird strike should be compensatable "for the simple reason that our skies are populated with birds" (a judge at Manchester County Court)
I do wish that people would put on their Captain Sensible caps and accept that a) we live with risk b) there's not always blame to be apportioned and c) "life is a box of chocolates; you never know what you are going to get."
Alas, those days are long gone. Like it or not we are now saddled with the blame culture.
Sometimes the airlines are their own worst enemy tho. It is human nature to dislike being lied to or having the truth twisted and in this regard the airlines often anger passenger. A truthful explanation with regular updates could circumvent many passenger from claiming in the first place. The flight crews roll in this regard is crucial, both ways around.
So, when the flight deck announces that a delay was due to, say, a technical problem earlier on in the day but the company then says it was due to an ATC problem it causes PAX anger. To many thats like a red rag to a bull. It's guaranteed to cause more claims.
On the other hand, a few weeks ago I was boarded onto an FR flight to the med. Once the doors were closed the captain announced that there would be a delay due to another French ATC strike. We were pushed to a remote stand to await our slot which was expected to be around 3 hours away. However, the captain announced that they had filed for a new slot, avoiding French air space, and he hoped that would come through a bit quicker.
In the mean time he said the door to the cockpit would be open and he would welcome anyone who wanted to pop up for a quick look or a chat. He especially invited any children.
By making that extra effort PAX were happy to chat and bide their time until out slot to re route came through 2.5 hrs later. The delay was under 3hrs but I'll bet that had it been over 3hrs there would have been very few claims if any.
Some free soft drinks would have been very welcome on a hot aircraft but that minimal cost seems to have been a step too far. It would have earned the crew and the airline quite a few more brownie points.
The way claims are handled leaves a lot of room for improvement too, it all seems a bit 'Heath Robinson' at the moment.
If airline were to get smart over some of these issues they could potentially save themselves revenue. Alienating PAX with patronising drivel is not the way forwards.