Passengers win right to compensation when flights cancelled for technical faults [Archive]

Cyclone733

23rd Dec 2008, 14:37

250 Euros for each passenger delayed by a cancelled flight even if it's down to an engine fault or perhaps a cracked windshield? Both of which happen from time to time and are "inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier" Both can take time to diagnose/repair/replace.

Short of having a second fleet of spare aircraft, there are always going to be issues arising from airline operations. Unlike a rail operator who can run services with faulty rolling stock (eg flat wheels, broken A/C, broken PA) an airline operator is both morally and legally obliged to provide an aircraft which is servicable to a far higher level eg faulty PA can be a no-go item and may not show itself until 5 minutes before boarding.

Fair enough companies who regularly take the piss deserve it, but those who try and provide a good service are going to get stung by this. Say good bye to the 50 Euro ticket

TeachMe

23rd Dec 2008, 14:52

I suggest these things would not be needed if airlines treated their passengers with more respect. If everyone believed the other was doing their best, then people might not complain as much.

Personally after a few problems with Air Canada, I have not traveled with them in over 7 years, and never will again. I have instead taken Cathey via HK to go Seoul - Vancouver instead. Yes it is a few hours longer but it is not Air Canada. To be honest, from what I have heard from my American co-workers US airlines are not much better.

Simmilarily, flying to Europe, I take Emerates, Cathey, or Singapore for the same reasons - less stress and more respect. That does not mean troubles dont happen, but it does mean that fewer troubles happen and when they do, I get treated well.

For me, I think it is the feeling if being nickled and dimed to death by many North Amerian and some European airlines that leads peaple to say that if the airlines are going to do that to them then '**** them' I'll do it back the first chance I get.

Respect goes both ways. More respect from airlines might make more understanding from passangers.

TME

verticalhold

23rd Dec 2008, 15:25

The joys and delights of a certain LCC in the UK.

When a certain LCC was new I was booked ABZ-LTN for a weekend off. After a 56 hour delay they laid on a flight which would have meant me getting on the return flight. No refund and the response of "Well we did provide a flight for you, so no refund." stuck deep in my throat. I fly corporate charter, if we let them down we have to provide an alternative, why shouldn't others including Big Airways who left me sleeping on a floor in a US airport this year and then down graded me from business to economy (World Traveller) in their parlance without any form of recompense.

VH

Desk Jockey

23rd Dec 2008, 18:27

What a great way to pressurize airlines to fly aircraft of doubtful servicability.:ugh:

cockney steve

23rd Dec 2008, 19:04

The "spare fleet for backup" argument is totally nebulous hogwash.

Yes, a major carrier MAY need to dot the odd plane around, in strategic spots, say 1 hour's flightradius all round to other airports they fly into...EG in the UK a "spare" could be at LHR and only the top -end of scotland would be more than an hour away,-everywhere else in the UK covered with ONE spare plane!...all other forms of Public Transport seem to manage the logistics of their operation.

Another suggestion, is to make rhe backup" fleet" more numerous smaller aircraft, then, as Draughtsman 99 stated, a lightly -loaded sector would STILL be viable to complete as the contract requires, without lying to pax and giving them the mushroom treatment.

Reserves would also take the pressure off engineering, ensuring a properly executed PERMANENT repair , as opposed to a "keep it going" one........and before anyone gets all indignant.....we know it happens!

I believe that Gloag and Souter made their multi-millions out of Stagecoach, because they KNEW the costings and therefore subsidies, were based on a single-decker bus.....in spite of the fact that the pax numbers wouldn't fill a minibus.......so, privatisation, buy minibuses, get subs based on big PSV's trouser the difference.

The airline industry could learn a trick or two there.
If I understand correctly, a scheduled flight HAS to take place even if there's only 1 pax......if so, "anything" legal could be sub-contract chartered to comply. or does no-one except O'Leary operate in the 21s't century's commercial reality?

*flame-suit on*

MarkD

23rd Dec 2008, 20:19

Airlines could seek exemption from this rule if they guaranteed to have a minimum % deferred items both on individual aircraft and fleet-wide at any time, coupled with being below a minimum % cancellations declared due to maintenance, perhaps? (Subject to submission of their aircraft and maintenance records to an authorised supervisory agency).

At present in the opinion of the Court the consumer is not protected from an airline spinning them a line when they just don't want to operate the sector, but I think the ECJ ruling can be replaced with something fairer if the airlines, realising the cost implications of this ruling, come forward with a reasonable, enforceable compromise. After all, airlines seem to find ways to operate in a timely manner from airports with slot restrictions - to the point of flying empty to keep the slot!

CargoOne

23rd Dec 2008, 22:22

It is much more complicated matter if you go into details.
Tech problems are always having the place. However to what extend the operator is prepared to deal with them? Many factors. One airline (especially very small) may opt for having just a small part of a no-go items in stock, while other may go much further and have extensive stock of spares. Which one is more likely to solve the tech problem?
One airline could have a contracted guy who is only good to top up the oil, other could have their own full-scale B1 & B2 guys at station. Again, which one is more likely to solve the tech problem quicker?
Some airlines having considerably more engine problems and even IFSDs than others, due to the different approach to preventive maintenance etc.
Airline with 3 aircraft cannot afford to have one spare aircraft. Airline with 50-100 fleet can. Blah-blah-blah.

Carnage Matey!

23rd Dec 2008, 23:00

es, a major carrier MAY need to dot the odd plane around, in strategic spots, say 1 hour's flightradius all round to other airports they fly into...EG in the UK a "spare" could be at LHR and only the top -end of scotland would be more than an hour away,-everywhere else in the UK covered with ONE spare plane!

And what type of spare plane should that be? BA has spare planes, but it's usually an A320 which isn't much use if a 757 goes tech. And you won't get very far from LHR in an hour. Maybe Newcastle.

...all other forms of Public Transport seem to manage the logistics of their operation.

....to a far lower level of technical scrutiny and regulation.

Reserves would also take the pressure off engineering, ensuring a properly executed PERMANENT repair , as opposed to a "keep it going" one........and before anyone gets all indignant.....we know it happens!

"Keep it going" is the essence of all aircraft operation. It's what the MEL is for. Repairing everything as and when it fails is simply impractical, nor can any airline afford to have sufficient reserve aircraft to cover all the defects which occur on a daily basis.

I believe that Gloag and Souter made their multi-millions out of Stagecoach, because they KNEW the costings and therefore subsidies,.......The airline industry could learn a trick or two there.

What are these subsidies in the airline industry you allude to?

If I understand correctly, a scheduled flight HAS to take place even if there's only 1 pax

My air law is rusty but unless this is part of the new EU regs no such rule exists.

Rollingthunder

23rd Dec 2008, 23:22

If pax knew what goes on the background to keep aircraft serviceable (in most airlines), they might have a better understanding of the complexities involved and the dedication of the staff.

But, hell, it's just a flying bus to them, isn't it.

davidjohnson6

23rd Dec 2008, 23:32

A few years ago when this compensatory regime first came into effect, there was a hope that the cowboy element would diminish. In particular, the possibility of waiting for a flight home and being told that because the plane had gone tech, pax would sometimes instead have to wait until there was space on future flights. On a twice weekly route in high season, this was sometimes 10 days away. If the original airline won't pay for a transfer to another carrier and you need to get home today - can you always afford to pay the full Y-class fare ?

When horror stories like this get into the press, the public become much more wary about booking. The compensatory regime achieves 2 things:

1) The cowboy element is tamed
2) Pax have the confidence to book a flight, knowing that the cost of compensation makes an airline act less like a cowboy. This should also increase ticket sales.

Want to fly off for the weekend, but need to be back home on Sunday evening for work on Monday ? Do you risk catching that flight on Sunday afternoon knowing the airline won't give a s**t if you're left stranded for a week ?

Now suppose we know the airline will get penalised for doing this - it's now much more likely the airline will make best efforts not to leave you stranded.

The compensatory regime has been essentially toothless. Airlines could get away with anything. John Smith doesn't have the technical knowledge to verify anything an airline may claim. By setting up a credible threat, pax have increased confidence to make a booking.

Compensation should occur very rarely - it's only there to ensure *all* airlines make best efforts when things go wrong - not to encourage the litigious and penalise unneccesarily.

Avitor

23rd Dec 2008, 23:51

It's a bad ruling. It stinks.

gatbusdriver

24th Dec 2008, 04:01

For all those pax that want more respect....stick your efing respect up your backside. That is quite clearly where your heads are....for you have no comprehension of how an airline works or strives to make money (many don't even do that).

You want to pay as little as possible yet expect the earth. There are way too many of you that live in cloud cuckoo land.

As for spare aircraft laying around to take you where you want to go at the drop of a hat............pi$$ off from this forum and join the National Express forum....they would obviously enjoy your input and high praise a lot more than us mere bus drivers.

This forum is overrun by idiots!

Glad I got that off my chest!!!

By the way I think the ruling is ridiculous, our airline strives for on time performance, I have complete faith in our engineering department and I fly the aircraft when it is safe and legal to do so, but to be told that we will now have to pay compensation for tech delays.....that sucks.

p.s. Happy Christmas to one and all (even the idiots)

Bigmouth

24th Dec 2008, 04:19

should it concern me?
as a pax should i be concened that this may "incentivise" airlines to take more risks in order to get a plane in the air?

or even deliberately falsify an "exceptional circumstance" in order not to pay up?
Yes, you should.

Ianbrit

24th Dec 2008, 05:07

gatbusdriver if it wasn,t for the pax you wouldn,t have a job and your attidude to people your meant to be supplying a service to frightens the hech out of me.I think your wasted as a pilot and you ought to be running your own airline(A pilot with a large ego like yours i,m surprised you can get in the cockpit)
phew glad I got that of my chest.
merry Christmas everyone

Jet_A_Knight

24th Dec 2008, 06:36

Easy fix.

If the flight is delayed due tech, don't cancel the flight!

Delay it until the aeroplane is fixed - whenever that may be - even if there is a rolling delay to get new crew etc, and it goes on all day and night.

Done.

Machines break - deal with it.

vancouv

24th Dec 2008, 07:00

I'm sure that plenty of people who are moaning about how hard done by the airlines are on here would be quick to slag off the train companies if their train is cancelled and spout off about how they could improve the service. The truth is that unless you are actually involved in the running, it's impossible to fully understand the issues and problems that come up - you only see it from your limited viewpoint.

If a plane genuinely goes tech, then there's not much that can be done about it, and that's not the airlines fault if they have been doing everything to prevent it. The problem is that we're so used to being given shoddy service, and lied to about what's happening that we're deeply suspicious. If an airline wants to cancel a flight because for some reason it doesn't suit them to operate it, like light loading, then saying the plane has gone tech is a massive get out clause and that shouldn't be allowed. If you're on the way to something important, or even if you're not, you have a right to expect that you will get there when promised.

And as for cheap flights - if your service is going to be substantially worse than someone more expensive, you shouldn't be claiming you're offering the same thing. Make it clear that in the event of a problem happening, you're f....d

411A

24th Dec 2008, 07:12

Because all too often 'tec' is used as an excuse not to fly a lightly loaded sector (voice of embittered experience)!!!!

Not only that, many times the technical problem is known well before departure time, but the respective carrier is too damn disorganized to actually do something about it...as in, not enough ground engineering staff for these circumstances.
Penny wise, pound foolish, comes to mind.

I say...get these carriers off their mis-informed duffs and have 'em pay and pay....and pay compensation (big time) untill they get their act together.

Period!:(

DingerX

24th Dec 2008, 07:35

Aircraft can go tech, but everyone agrees there is a price to doing so. When the industry is as tightly run as it is now, with consistently high load factors, very little spare equipment and 'sporting' duty rosters, an aircraft going tech can be more than an inconvenience. When major airlines think that staffing enough agents to rebook all pax in less than six hours is reasonable service, we have a problem. Just as with rostering, without regulation the bulk of these companies will remove all the elasticity in the system at the expense of those who must endure it.

So by all means, cancel the flight if the aircraft needs unscheduled maintenance (although I must say I find it hard to contain my amusement when I show up at the airport to find my flight has been cancelled due to a tech issue known as a 'C check', but not to worry, the company's A340 to the same destination from another airport has plenty of room for all of us, and will be swinging by to pick us up). But don't skimp on the costs involved in the cancellation. If things are so competitive that treating pax or crew like human beings is 'outside the industry norm,' then bring in the regulations.
So what if tickets cost more?

bnt

24th Dec 2008, 08:40

You want to pay as little as possible yet expect the earth. There are way too many of you that live in cloud cuckoo land.
...
This forum is overrun by idiots!
As SLF, I never asked for super-cheap fares. The airlines did that to themselves, to get more people flying, and they got what they wanted. I'd happily pay a fair price for a fair service, but there seems to be no logic behind fare structures these days. Fares can vary wildly between airlines, for the same leg on the same day, or can go up by a factor of 10 for no apparent reason except proximity to a holiday, so what are pax supposed to learn from fares about the costs involved in running an airline?

I always knew that things can and do go wrong, but do you really want a return to the days when people could not rely on scheduled flights, and should only fly if their itinerary had days of slack in it? If you promise that kind of reliability, you have to deliver, or not make the promise in the first place. About the only other business that could get away with that kind of fuzzy scheduling is medicine; if a patient is already ill and not working, what does he/she care if the surgeon pushes the op back a day? :ouch:

Of course I understand that pilots deserve respect, but how do you earn it? These days pax are told that the planes fly themselves - I remember a pilot making a big deal over the Tannoy about a hands-off landing in an Airbus, back in 1990. (No, I am not saying that I believe that planes fly themselves!) With all the security in place now, the cockpit door is always closed, so the "pilot" could be a voice from the ground for all they know. The only time pax ever see pilots is through the window as they're boarding, feet up on the console, bolting down a dodgy sandwich in the few minutes between Ryanair segments. :sad:

lexxity

24th Dec 2008, 08:49

not to encourage the litigious and penalise unneccesarily.

Yet this is what will happen. I've had pax accuse me of lying to them whilst they look over my shoulder to the aircraft with cowls up and several engineers in attendance. Tech delays happen and it will end up with massive rolling delays to avoid paying out compensation. I absolutely agree that the cowboys need to be brought to heel, but this ruling seems to me to be setting a bear trap to catch a mouse. I do stand to be corrected.

manintheback

24th Dec 2008, 09:03

If you read the ruling in detail it came about due to Alitalia completely taking the micky (The aircraft in question had been out of service the day before and they had canned the flight at that time, but only telling the pax 5 mins before it was due to depart - about par for the course for that particular airline).

The detail of the ruling suggest that last minute tech issues are not covered for compensation so all seems perfectly reasonable to me.

And on the below from GBD, ok I'll bite

For all those pax that want more respect....stick your efing respect up your backside. That is quite clearly where your heads are....for you have no comprehension of how an airline works or strives to make money (many don't even do that).

You want to pay as little as possible yet expect the earth. There are way too many of you that live in cloud cuckoo land.

How about paying over £4K for a biz class flight to JNB cancelled 4 hours after it was scheduled to depart (fair enuff , heavy snow at departure).
But then being offered the next available seat over SIX WEEKS away and my luggage not returned for 25 days! (not unusual for that particular airline by all accounts). I think that gave me a very good comprehension how that airline 'worked' (a view that seems to be shared between the professionals and PAX about rather too many airlines from reading this forum)

Offer a service for which you charge, provide it or expect the flak.

radeng

24th Dec 2008, 12:22

GBD,

you give the impression that that pax should pay and not expect to get anywhere. There is some sort of contract implied, and to offer a flight several days later is impudence of the highest order, as well as treating pax with contumely.

Remember, ultimately, we pay your wages. You'd be really pleased if the garage promised to have your car serviced for 5pm, and then said, 'Sorry, we had technical difficulties. We have other people booked in for tomorrow and the day after and the earliest we can now fit you in is the end of next week - and you can't have a loan car either'.

As brit said, many of us never asked for super cheap fares. That's one reason I have only once used a European LoCo, and they happened to be so good I wonder if they'll last - that's FlyBaboo. So when we pay for travel on a major carrier, we do expect a reasonable degree of punctuality and reliability. If we aren't going to get it, then I can spend longer but with relatively high reliability (at least once I'm over the channel) by going by train - and that doesn't help the airline!

However, the few times I've had problems with aircraft going tech, it was all sorted quickly, and with cancellations, BA have been pretty good at finding hotels. Which is why I stick to BA....62 flights in 2008, excellent service on every one, although some of the check-in people abroad (who are servisair or whoever, and not BA staff) often leave something to be desired..

ManAtTheBack

24th Dec 2008, 13:02

gatbusdriver

I think your attitude to the paying customer demonstrates why there is a need for such legislation.

When airlines fob customers off with meaningless excuses then it is time for the courts to rule in the customers favour.

An example:

Week 1 Sunday. My flight is cancelled due to a 'technical problem'
Week 2 Sunday. Same flight is cancelled due to a 'technical problem'
Week 4 Sunday. Same flight is cancelled due to a 'technical problem'.

The fact that all the pax will easily fit onto the next flight 2 hours later with plenty of room is presumably irrelevant.

The fact that the airline is using its aircraft on a more lucrative charter is presumably irrelevant.

And I am not talking about a low cost airline/fare.

gatbusdriver

24th Dec 2008, 14:03

Let me assure you I give pax the respect they deserve!

Let me also assure you that the majority of UK pilots are aware that this is a service industry and as such do their best to provide a service. I think some of you are getting confused between these two words, respect and service.
Even the LoCo guys will try to provide that service out of professionalism, but often have their hands tied by operations. MOL would be the first to say publicly that you get what you pay for. He is aware that most of the great British public are driven by cost.

For those plonkers that start sprouting the 'We pay your wages' cr@p, please desist. It is a touch annoying. Do you sit in a restaurant and after having a bad meal/service sprout 'I pay your wages'......I thought not. I also doubt you would say that on a train or in Tescos etc....

TeachMe

24th Dec 2008, 15:08

It may be my post above about respect that got one poster 'upset'. He also said that many of us SLF want the cheapest flights possible. It is of course stupid to say that I would not choose that cheapest flight that fit my requirements, but one of my requirements is that the airline is responsible, safe and professional. Flying to Bangkok last year I had a number of options and chose a mid range price option, not the cheapest option.

To say that pasangers demand the cheapest flight might be true for some percentage of SLF, but a good chunk of us are willing to pay a fair price that allows an airline to give a good product and make a fair profit.

Yeild managment as the joke about the cost of paint for your house shows (anyone have a link to that??), only makes people unhappy and feel taken advantage of. Unhappy people make trouble and demand payback. I am willing to pay a fair price for my ticket, please give me the option to do so and get fair service in return!! No games, just honesty!

Final 3 Greens

24th Dec 2008, 15:11

Do you sit in a restaurant and after having a bad meal/service sprout 'I pay your wages'......I thought not

No, because a smart waiter will check throughout the meal and ensure everything is okay.

And Tesco really understands service delivery.

To reiterate, it is the mickey taking by some companies that has brought this new ruling.

ManAtTheBack

24th Dec 2008, 15:56

"Do you sit in a restaurant and after having a bad meal/service sprout 'I pay your wages'......I thought not"

Most restaurants, if you point out service failures, will try to correct them or offer a discount.

Tesco is profitable because it provides what customers want.

As for getting what I pay for, how does that work when passengers pay high fares and still get treated badly.

Gatbusdriver, how does your employer obtain the money to pay your salary?

LH2

24th Dec 2008, 19:32

Excuse me, but what's the news here? The legislation has been in place for years and all that piece of "news" is saying is that Alitalia were trying to be clever and get away from paying until someone ended up hitting them with a lawsuit.

Hasn't anybody read the Traveller's Rights posters plastered all over in every European airport? Or are we talking about something else?

I did get compensation without even asking the last two times I got delayed due to a "technical problem". Nowadays, I choose to fly Ryanair whenever possible as they seem to be quite good at getting there on time (and getting there at all in the first place, which is more that can be said about certain other companies).

Final 3 Greens

24th Dec 2008, 21:01

LH2

This new ruling adds teeth to the legislation.

That's what's new.

Proceed to Go, do not collect £200.

radeng

25th Dec 2008, 10:43

GBD,

You may not like it, but the truth is that we DO pay your wages, and without us, you'd be flying cargo - if you could get a job.

Things are going to get worse in terms of load factors. I've noticed how much the loads have dropped off since September, and next year's timetables seem to reflect this with fewer flights to some destinations. So the airlines will be competing for fewer pax, and the 'pile it high and sell it cheap' philosophy only goes so far. So we might find enhanced service (eg reliability) introduced to attract a higher percentage of a smaller pax base. Some will go for fare cutting, but you can only do so much of that. If you have a lot of unused aircraft because you've cut flights, it might be easier to substitute when necessary. As an aside, when you consider how complex a modern aircraft is, the reliability of them is quite astonishing, although that is achieved by a fair amount of maintenance. Without the engineers, we don't go anywhere....

I don't see my business travel dropping off, so I'll be interested to see what happens. As my boss says, when times are hard, people put off buying cars and yachts and holidays (and even aeroplanes!), but they don't put off buying a pacemaker or other medical implant.

smala01

25th Dec 2008, 17:38

"Why can't pax accept s**t happens?"

Because its almost impossible to insure against this type of "s**t happening". Check your insurance policy very closely. If anyone knows a policy that covers hotel and/or repatriation costs on a return leg then I would be very interested to hear about it.

PAXboy

26th Dec 2008, 16:05

Certainly most pax want to pay as little as possible and those that are able and willing to pay slightly more are few. Their numbers are going to become considerably fewer in the next two years.

I expect that travel insurance companies will see this as an opportunity to sell their products - possibly with a little more focus on delays and their reasons - but the best alternative to getting to destination sooner and recovering part of the cost.

Some clever kid in a mainline carrier may want to suggest a high risk strategy: which is to sell tickets with different levels of support (inc Food; Hotel; Compensation or NOT) for the SAME CABIN at different prices. The problems for gate/check-in/CC to sort this out in the middle of a snowstorm (to be topical!) is a nightmare but it would be worth discussing. [expecting incoming!]

However, travel insurance is the simplest answer as a good policy covers you against all carriers. Choose the policy with care and pay a reasonable amount for it.

On a side note ... during the recent Bangkok airport closure, I was amused to see how many pax just sat and complained that no one was helping them. Some had stories about the importance of being home and yet did not seem to have proper travel insurance, or the interest, to take a train to another airport - even Singapore - and get home from there. Sure - it would have cost money and maybe big money - but they would have got home.

The short answer to this issue of tech failure possibly leading to compensation is that air fares will continue to return to realistic levels in the next three years.

Airline Paint. I do have the story in text form but it is rather long and might bung up this thread. Perhaps TS could suggest where I put it?? :eek: :=

smala01

26th Dec 2008, 17:32

"However, travel insurance is the simplest answer as a good policy covers you against all carriers. Choose the policy with care and pay a reasonable amount for it."

PaxBoy - If you live in the UK no policy (that i can find) covers you for expenses and transport by alternative means should the ariline delay/cancel (tech / weather) your return leg.

If you take rynair / easyjets own policy this cover only relates when flying on their own planes.

Smala01

(If you know such a policy then please direct us to it)

PAXboy

27th Dec 2008, 17:43

Smala01 I agree that all current options are for highly restricted delay payments. My own has a top limit that I met on one occasion but, if I was offered an extension of the delay clause for an extra payment? I would look at it very closely.

The massive changes currently under way in the airline world, will bring other changes in the inter-related business'. I expect that insurance will change too because there is money to be made.

Nov71

29th Dec 2008, 16:29

Last minute tech problems do occur but all too often ‘tech’ is used as a catch-all excuse by management for their own shortcomings. IMO the ticket is a Contract for travel on a particular flight ‘within a reasonable time’, provided I meet the conditions for ID, check-in time etc.
Delay compensation bands are clearly stipulated. If a flight is cancelled then it should be classed as delayed indefinitely ie max delay.
This ruling should ensure pax are not told to go home and come back tomorrow at their own expense, resulting in many sleeping in the Terminal overnight (if allowed).
If a flight is cancelled, (or delayed ‘for reasons beyond the Carriers control’), the passengers should be given a written explanation at the time, which can be proved in Court.
Aviation is a service industry where safety and customer relations are paramount, so the best info available should be given to keep the pax informed at all stages. Most pilots do this en-route so why are ground management incapable?

If the airlines had to provide pax delay insurance I bet there would be fewer delays, to keep the Premiums down. Train operators have to meet arrival standards or pay a fine and may have to pay compensation if part of the journey is by slower, cheaper coach.
Doctors have to obtain full, informed consent or risk a charge of assault.

skydriller

30th Dec 2008, 02:00

In a minute, no doubt someone will be along to spout the old mantra of "an airline ticket is only a contract to get you to your destination at some point in the future, at the airlines descretion, and if you dont like it, then tough..." or something similar, I cant remember the actual legalese.

The problem is, that this kind of thing was OK back in the 50s etc, when airline travel wasnt an everyday form of transport and the weather and tech problems really did delay flights for days making flying an adventure. However, in todays modern age, flying is so safe & reliable (and all the airlines sell this point) that now everyone arranges their schedules based on flights being resonably on time. Hell, even the airlines will book you through a hub with a 30min connection time which is the bare minimum time it takes you to walk from gate to gate in some places!!

If the airline screws up then they should foot the bill for accommodating and feeding you while they sort their mess out, period. After all, the chances are that its aleady costing the pax money just by being delayed. My own opinion is that if you pay a proper Legacy carrier then you should get this, if you go LoCo then expect nothing, regardless of the Law.

regards, SD

lexxity

30th Dec 2008, 10:14

flying is so safe & reliable

Which is why tech cancellations occur. If it's not safe it doesn't go.

6chimes

30th Dec 2008, 10:51

Well said :D

I am not a lawyer or know much about law. Is it not possible that in an industry where it costs millions and millions just to operate in an environment that has ridiculously low fares as an expectation from its customers, that the carrier could, rather than pay more for your hotel accommodation than you have paid for your ticket, just give you your money back? A lot of other places where you spend your money and then at the last minute they can't deliver, simply offer you your money back rather than make an effort to supply you at a later date.

Of course the industry knows that you are likely to a long way from home and therefore has always tried to accommodate its customers within the logistics of having a/c in the wrong place and the extended time it may take to get the operation back to normal.

I am not trying to sound dismissive to the rights of people that have been severely inconvenienced, I am just trying to point out that if the rules just tie up the airlines then they may just look at loopholes to save them money.

An a/c is not like your car where if you notice an odd little noise somewhere on your way to work then you decide to get it checked out on your days off.

6

davidjohnson6

30th Dec 2008, 12:35

6chimes - there's a reason that just getting your money back doesn't work.

Suppose I book a long-haul trip - maybe London-HK far in advance - maybe I pay £600 round-trip. The airline was happy to offer that fare at the time I booked. Most airlines are fully aware they are commercial companies and act accordingly - I have never heard an airline proclaiming that it is a charity. The era of only Y-class fares being available ended over 20 years ago.

Now suppose, that when I'm ready to come home, the plane goes tech, and the airline offers £300. Since many a HK-Europe flight departs late at night, it could well be midnight. The city has basically closed for the night, I've got an IOU for £300 (which will take a couple of weeks to come through) . My bank account has been run dry because of holiday spending, I need to get back to work in 24 hours, I have nowhere to sleep besides the floor, it's peak season and other airlines are charging £2000 for a last-minute one-way seat to London.

What would you do in such a scenario ?

Now suppose that I knew this might happen at the time of booking, and a different airline offers a fare for £620 but with the promise of compensation at the EU level in the event of this kind of scenario ? Which airline would you choose ?

6chimes

30th Dec 2008, 15:06

Sorry if you did not quite understand the essence of my post. When you are discussing long haul flights that is an entirely different scenario from flying short haul routes. The vast majority of complaints come from short haul cancellations quite simply because there are more flights to go wrong. As we all know and has been said here many times before, the industry as a whole is run to capacity and when things do go wrong there is no slack in system. Any airline that is operating with a completely fool proof back up plan for every eventuality and it can be whisked into action without a moments delay, will not be in business shortly.

A/c do stop working every now and again, and I have never heard of my airline canceling a flight for no good reason.

Perhaps the problem here is how much some people take for granted our ability to hurtle through the sky at 500 mph, have breakfast in Paris, lunch in Rome and be home in time for dinner. I think a little reality needs to be introduced.

Possibly the reason a lot of you all believe there is some cynical ploy to manipulate everyone and treat you like idiots is because that is how most large companies treat their clients.

6

davidjohnson6

30th Dec 2008, 16:23

6chimes - I partly agree with your points. Big complex machines will sometimes go wrong. Maintenance and engineering will take you so far, but some things just cannot be prevented.

However, from an economics standpoint, I still think that a compensatory system is to the benefit of all.

Having fool-proof back-up is extremely expensive and completely unviable, but having 1%-2% of a fleet on standby at strategic locations may well be viable. Yes, the EU compensation amounts for short-haul are high, but this is intended to be a deterrent - and encourage an airline to keep a little part of its operation in reserve instead.

If an airline can say 'Here's your money back, now go away', there is little economic incentive to have any kind of reserve. An airline that's been running for many years should know the frequency of planes going tech. Given this probability, work out the cost of compensation for a 70% load factor. Now compare the cost of having 0.5%, 1% and 2% of fleet on standby without needing to pay compensation. There will be some break-even point beyond which a hot standby is the cheaper option. Further, if there's some reason which often accounts for tech but remains unresolved because of internal politics, this provides an inducement for the organisation to fix it.

Yes, there will be times when that standby isn't sufficient - but it probably provides a back-up solution for 80% of the cases when EU compensation would otherwise be payable.

Since all EU carriers get punished the same way, it means all carriers inevitable raise their fares a small amount to cover the cost of this hot standby. Pax of course end up paying for it in higher fares - but are usually happier with this regime, compared to saving a little bit of cash at the cost of no back-up.

You may be interested to know that at some major train stations in London, the main operators keep a spare train and driver just for the times when a train goes tech. No reason airlines can't be coerced into keeping a little bit in reserve as well....

Final 3 Greens

30th Dec 2008, 17:34

This legislation will force prices up.

That, combined with the effects of the recession, will leave a healthier air transport sector that is profitable.

There will be less air travel in the future, but I regard that as a reasonable outcome, others may not.

6chimes

30th Dec 2008, 18:19

I certainly agree with your points on keeping an a/c and crew on sby, my lot does just that, and it often gets used daily. Very often it used to catch up the timetable which has been strained due to slots and holding.

I also agree that the industry changes we have seen over the past few years which has led to a reduction in service standards and it also has to be said, expectations, and they were LOCO driven. Not long ago people were berating the legacy carriers to change the way they did business. You did get some sort of assistance when it hit the fan with those airlines. Those carriers employed more staff to help passengers on the ground, they had more crew on the flights to give a good service. But it was the customer voting with his wallet that forced everyone to run to the bare bones or go bust. That is why there is no slack in the system.

I also agree with you that airlines should not cancel flights at the drop of the hat. However, I do not think fining them will help much. It seems to a culture these days where companies just get slapped with a financial penalty if they do not perform to a standard usually set by people that have no knowledge of the business they are talking about, usually to get a vote or to because they appear to be 'on your side'. Financial penalties take money out of the business that could of otherwise been invested in the long term improvements and solutions that are needed.

There must be a better way to solve the problem than just a PR exercise that looks good to the voter.

6

davidjohnson6

30th Dec 2008, 19:06

Granted a "cheapest-at-all-costs" demand from the public encourages airlines to strive for the lowest possible standard service. However, Govt through legislation can prevent this kind of 'market failure' by forcing the airlines which preach the most extreme 'cheapest' message to raise their standards - and thus the self-destructive striving ceases.

Yes, the compensation regime is a little blunt, but taxation by its nature is always blunt. That engine which has been knocked out by freak multiple bird strikes should not really be a cause of a big compensation bills, but tech has in the past been used as an excuse by some of the more cowboy-ish airlines rather too often. How does landside Joe Bloggs seeing 'Cancelled' on a monitor verify which carrier is being honest about tech, and which uses it as an excuse ? Wouldn't you become cynical eventually ?

Any 'fair' approach will inevitably be highly complex and quickly becomes subjective. The pilots know part of what's going on.... the dispatcher knows another bit, maintenance knows something else - must pax really call all these different people to a small claims court to get a decision as to whether compensation should be due ?

Any kind of scheme should coerce airlines into factoring a level of reliabilty into their operation and dissuade from just abandoning pax whenever convenient - so there has to be a painful part for airlines somewhere. Even when you've decided what is or isn't allowed - how severe should the financial penalties be ? Very subjective decision....

How do you set up a scheme with appropriate incentives, which is simple to understand, verifiable by all and easy to process ? Industry regulation can be a surprisingly complex part of microeconomics.... if you have any good ideas on this, I'd be genuinely interested to hear of them.

skydriller

30th Dec 2008, 22:26

A/c do stop working every now and again, and I have never heard of my airline canceling a flight for no good reason.

I have..... oddly to the same flights again and again where there is a low load factor and everyone miraculously fits onto the flight 3-4 hrs later....

This legislation will force prices up.
That, combined with the effects of the recession, will leave a healthier air transport sector that is profitable.
There will be less air travel in the future, but I regard that as a reasonable outcome, others may not.

:D:D:D

LH2

30th Dec 2008, 23:57

F3G,

This new ruling adds teeth to the legislation.

That's what's new.

Still do not understand. How does it do that? You mean by virtue of setting jurisprudence? The only novelty here is that ECJ has decided that routine tech problems do not constitute "extraordinary circumstances" under the relevant legislation (if one were a sarcastic bastard looking for a cheap shot, one would probably mention that indeed, there is nothing extraordinary about an Alitalia going tech :E)

What is certain is that the Torygraph article is misleading in the following points:

* The header "Passengers win right to compensation when flights cancelled for technical faults" is not accurate. The right to compensation has existed for years (article 19 of the Montreal Convention, 1999, implemented in EC law in 2004) and was the basis under which this case was brought--it is the clarification of what does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance that is new.

* The article says "The European Commission has set out detailed rules governing passengers' rights to compensation when flights are cancelled" without bothering to point out that yes, indeed, the EC did that... back in 2004 [Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32004R0261:EN:HTML)]

* Assertions that "the European Commission [...] has accused airlines of frequently trying to sidestep their legal obligations" and "airlines will no longer be able to use routine technical problems as an excuse" are unsourced and imply that cheating by airlines is the rule. There is no quantifiable evidence of either that I can find.

Additionally, it uses a cheap sensationalist device right in its first paragraph: "[...]airlines must pay up unless the technical fault was due to exceptional circumstances – such as terrorism or sabotage." (my emphasis). In fact, the first example of an exceptional circumstance given by the court, in point 26 of its ruling is that of a safety bulletin. Namely:

"26 However, it cannot be ruled out that technical problems are covered by those exceptional circumstances to the extent that they stem from events which are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control. That would be the case, for example, in the situation where it was revealed by the manufacturer of the aircraft comprising the fleet of the air carrier concerned, or by a competent authority, that those aircraft, although already in service, are affected by a hidden manufacturing defect which impinges on flight safety. The same would hold for damage to aircraft caused by acts of sabotage or terrorism."

The editor's choice is understandable though, as terrorism sells, and while sensationalism generally goes in detriment of a publication's credibility, that's only a concern where the publication has any to start with.

Unfortunately, it is not until the last two paragraphs that we are told the "what" of the article.

I suggest that, to best serve the professional interests of those involved in aviation, it would be advisable to refer to the source documents, and avoid wherever possible quoting from generalist media.

In such spirit, here is the text of the ruling: Case C‑549/07 (http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=EN&Submit=rechercher&numaff=C-549/07terr).

Here is the corresponding press release: Press Release No 100/08 (http://curia.europa.eu/en/actu/communiques/cp08/aff/cp080100en.pdf)

Here is the relevant legislation: Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32004R0261:EN:HTML)

Lastly, here is the text of the Montreal Convention 1999: Article 19 (http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/air.carriage.unification.convention.montreal.1999/19.html) - Full Text (http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/air.carriage.unification.convention.montreal.1999/)

HTH.

SXB

31st Dec 2008, 09:47

The EC legislation covering air travel are aimed at protecting consumer rights in an industry where a customer can be placed in severe inconvenience should a problem occur.

The EC understand that statutory compensation schemes will simply lead to increases in ticket prices. They believe this is ok because certain consumer rights need to be guaranteed even if this means a customer pays more for those particluar goods or services. The basis of nearly all EU legislation is to create a 'level playing field' and in this case they believe that guaranteeing such rights is worth the end result of increased prices. The hole in their argument is they believe the effect of such laws is the same on every airline, obviously this is not true, the bigger you are the better.

Personally speaking the airlines I travel with treat me very well and tech delays are extremely rare, I've had 2 this year and that's out of around 180 sectors. Contrary to what people think most airlines don't use tech problems as an excuse not to carry passengers. The one exception to that appears to be Alitalia. Last year I had reason to travel to Albania on numerous occasions and my options were very limited so I always took Strasbourg-Milan-Tirana meaning a total of 4 sectors on each trip. I did that maybe 6 or 7 times and on every single occasion at least one of the sectors was cancelled because of a tech or crewing problem.

Alitalia are an airline who need to be regulated by legislation created outside their own country. Many other airlines don't because they are better managed. For example, I can't remember the last time I had a problem with Air France which wasn't resolved to my satisfaction...

radeng

31st Dec 2008, 10:19

My last real tech delay was a couple of years back on the July 4 weekend when the BA flight from Phoenix went tech. Delayed boarding, then an engine wouldn't start. All off. Ground staff supposed to have gone home, but stayed. Worried as how to find hotel rooms for a full 744 on Saturday night of a July 4 weekend. Mechanics work on engine, get it to start, everyone board again. At this point the crew would have well within their rights to cancel because they would be out of hours, but the capt elected to go into discretionary hours and we got away about four hours late. That decision doubtless saved a lot of money for BA, a lot of hassle for the pax and ground staff, at the price of a bit more crew strain.

To my mind, that was exemplary service by the crew. I wonder if management noted it? I doubt it, but that was one case where compenstion for a tech delay would not be justified, even if we had been eligible.

PAXboy

31st Dec 2008, 18:32

That is a fine example of fine service, radeng. I fear that the blunt instrument being wielded will not make any real difference. For the reason that it will continue to raise pax expectations.

I think that encouraging travel insurance companies to offer better options would help because then those who wish to pay more for insurance can do so and those who want/need to save money and take the risk can do so.

This legislation, in my view, has it's roots in the legacy carriers who saw the LCCs 'getting away' with not having to provide back-up. In the end it raises the prices for all and that is not going to be helpful during this recession. I agree with F3G that prices have to rise but this is just too blunt, more inventive insurance is the answer.

Rwy in Sight

31st Dec 2008, 18:39

The question is obviously if the raise in fares would be used to provide better service/ back up or to raise the profitability

Rwy in Sight

radeng

1st Jan 2009, 14:21

Runway,

More likely be used to provide bonuses for the top management.

Cynical? Who, me?

SLF3b

5th Jan 2009, 09:45

I have seen Paris flights with a certain big airline cancelled out of Heathrow due to technical problems. In every case there were very few passengers and more than enough seats on the next flight. This is dishonest. Dishonesty should be punished.

Carnage Matey!

5th Jan 2009, 10:59

I wonder which very big airline out of Heathrow that was, as I flew Paris flights for a certain very big airline out of Heathrow for years and never once had one cancelled because of a light passenger load, and I flew some really light loads. Must have been the other big airline.

VAFFPAX

11th Jan 2009, 01:10

Apparently one airline out of DUB is sometimes guilty of that as well... cancelling a flight out of DUB on Sundays and instead pushing pax onto the flight after, because of light load, and probably also because of slot scheduling.

If things go pearshaped on a Sunday evening, you don't want to end up at LTN or worse, STN, because it mucks up whatever you had scheduled afterwards.

My recent experience with said airline was still such that they tried to get us into London anyway by diverting to LTN and booking three buses to get us to LHR (but the ground support at LTN was non-existent, not something the airline could've forseen), but I missed my last connection home by 4 minutes, costing me a significant chunk in taxi fare. But that's something that cannot be helped, it's not something to get upset about. We were not eligible for compensation because we went ahead anyway, even though the airline pointed out that our plans could be thrown into disarray after arrival at LTN.

Compensation for those who chose to stay in DUB for the night was a hotel room at several of the hotels near the airport, and a booking (and pickup from said hotels) for the first flight out early on Monday morning.

S.