Money for Wait

[Rollingthunder]

Air passengers to get cash handouts if delayed for three hours after EU court victory | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/holidays/article-2221897/Air-passengers-cash-handouts-delayed-hours-EU-court-victory.html)

But nothing if I am delayed for four hours LHR-SYD?

[Tableview]

I suspect that the DM has got it wrong as it should apply to all flights on EU carriers or originating in the EU. However the threshholds and amounts for payment are different for s/h and longhaul flights.

Right to compensation
1. Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall receive compensation amounting to:
(a) EUR 250 for all flights of 1500 kilometres or less;
(b) EUR 400 for all intra-Community flights of more than 1500 kilometres, and for all other flights between 1500 and 3500 kilometres;
(c) EUR 600 for all flights not falling under (a) or (b).
In determining the distance, the basis shall be the last destination at which the denial of boarding or cancellation will delay the passenger's arrival after the scheduled time.


2. When passengers are offered re-routing to their final destination on an alternative flight pursuant to Article 8, the arrival time of which does not exceed the scheduled arrival time of the flight originally booked
(a) by two hours, in respect of all flights of 1500 kilometres or less; or
(b) by three hours, in respect of all intra-Community flights of more than 1500 kilometres and for all other flights between 1500 and 3500 kilometres; or
(c) by four hours, in respect of all flights not falling under (a) or (b),
the operating air carrier may reduce the compensation provided for in paragraph 1 by 50 %.


I would interpret this as meaning that a LON SYD would have to be delayed by >4 hours to invoke compensation of €600, which could be reduced by 50%.

[PAXboy]

When reading about the DM, I always adopt my most cynical:


DM 'mis-represents' the facts
People are delighted.
People finds the truth, not so delighted
The DM is suitably 'horrified' that those beasts in BRU are not doing the right thing by protecting every traveller (correction, every British traveller) against every possible kind of problem that the real world and capitalism throws at customers.
The DM campaigns and shows it's loyal readers what a great paper it is.
The DM moves on to it's next fabulous bit of 'reporting'
etcetera ..

[The SSK]

The can of worms just got a whole lot more wriggly.

• Catering truck makes contact with wing trailing edge.
• Flight delayed while inspections take place.
• Was the incident ‘avoidable’? Well, yes.
• 450 passengers entitled to €600 compensation. That’s €270,000
• Similar delay for the 450 passengers booked on the return trip. That’s another €270.000
• The airline coughs up €540,000 without demur (really? Does it?) then asks the catering company for the money. Catering company can’t/won’t pay.
• The legal profession moves in and the bills just keep getting bigger.

Or
• A foul-up which can be attributed to the airport causes a half hour delay.
• ATC, which is suffering restrictions because of some system inadequacy can’t give a slot for two hours.
• Because of this the crew go out of hours and a replacement has to be found, flight leaves 4h late.
• Scenario as above, total liability upwards of half a million €.
• Who is to ‘blame’? The airport, for the initial short delay? ATC, because they can’t come up with a new slot immediately? The airline, for its rostering policy? Or if all three, in what proportions?
• Time to call in the lawyers again …

Repeat, on a virtually daily basis, somewhere in Europe

[edi_local]

Why do these regulations only apply to airlines?

Why, if I am taking the train from, say, London to Brussels and I am delayed 4 hours due to a fault of the channel tunnel or eurostar am I not entitled to get €250 from them, or indeed anything, not even a refreshment voucher?

If I was delayed for 4 hours in BRU or LHR then I'd get a refreshment voucher and a would be entitled to make a claim of such amounts (even if I only paid around €70 for the ticket, for example).

I do think these regulations seem be a bit unbalanced. People getting paid hundreds of Euros when they may not have even spent anywhere near that amount on the original ticket. These seem to have been thought up by people who wish to see airlines consigned to the history books. :mad:

[davidjohnson6]

The whole scheme was dreamt up after years of some airlines abusing their position. Some of the less customer-centric airlines continued to abuse their position, and it's come to this, with an overly strict set or rules applied to airlines.

Ideally the whole scheme should have greater levels of subtlety, so that only the most serious of abuse is punished severely, while minor problems lead to small levels of compensation. Unfortunately, such a scheme would be tremendously complicated and costly to administer.

What to do about it ? Answers on a postcard please...

[edi_local]

I don't for a second disagree that some airlines were taking the mick so It is good that in cases where they clearly are to blame (over selling, delays due to technical faults for example) then passengers are protected (although giving someone who paid €400 for a ticket only €250 while also giving someone who paid €30 the same amount is clearly unfair). In cases of weather I honestly don't see why an airline should pay out a penny as they are in no way to blame. Passengers who choose to fly in the winter should know that things like fog, snow, ice, severe winds and storms are much more likely to delay flights, so why they should be entitled to the same compensation as someone who has been booted off because an airline greedily sold their seat twice is beyond me.

I think it should also be made clear that they are not entitled to be given the compensation in person, on demand. It has to be claimed retrospectively. I've seen plenty of cases of airport staff getting shouted at as passengers demand to be given money on the spot and refusing to take a refreshment voucher. It needs to be made clear that all they are entitled to at the time is that voucher and nothing else. These DM articles and many like it do nothing but misinform people about their rights to entitlement, which is more damaging than anything.

[ExXB]

Why do these regulations only apply to airlines?

Why, if I am taking the train from, say, London to Brussels and I am delayed 4 hours due to a fault of the channel tunnel or eurostar am I not entitled to get €250 from them, or indeed anything, not even a refreshment voucher?

If I was delayed for 4 hours in BRU or LHR then I'd get a refreshment voucher and a would be entitled to make a claim of such amounts (even if I only paid around €70 for the ticket, for example).

I do think these regulations seem be a bit unbalanced. People getting paid hundreds of Euros when they may not have even spent anywhere near that amount on the original ticket. These seem to have been thought up by people who wish to see airlines consigned to the history books. :mad:

They don't. Under Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32007R1371:EN:NOT) you are entitled to 50% of your fare in compensation:


Article 16

Reimbursement and re-routing

Where it is reasonably to be expected that the delay in the arrival at the final destination under the transport contract will be more than 60 minutes, the passenger shall immediately have the choice between:

(a) reimbursement of the full cost of the ticket, under the conditions by which it was paid, for the part or parts of his or her journey not made and for the part or parts already made if the journey is no longer serving any purpose in relation to the passenger’s original travel plan, together with, when relevant, a return service to the first point of departure at the earliest opportunity. The payment of the reimbursement shall be made under the same conditions as the payment for compensation referred to in Article 17; or

(b) continuation or re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to the final destination at the earliest opportunity; or

(c) continuation or re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to the final destination at a later date at the passenger’s convenience.

Article 17

Compensation of the ticket price

1. Without losing the right of transport, a passenger may request compensation for delays from the railway undertaking if he or she is facing a delay between the places of departure and destination stated on the ticket for which the ticket has not been reimbursed in accordance with Article 16. The minimum compensations for delays shall be as follows:

(a) 25 % of the ticket price for a delay of 60 to 119 minutes,

(b) 50 % of the ticket price for a delay of 120 minutes or more.

Passengers who hold a travel pass or season ticket and who encounter recurrent delays or cancellations during its period of validity may request adequate compensation in accordance with the railway undertaking’s compensation arrangements. These arrangements shall state the criteria for determining delay and for the calculation of the compensation.

Compensation for delay shall be calculated in relation to the price which the passenger actually paid for the delayed service.

Where the transport contract is for a return journey, compensation for delay on either the outward or the return leg shall be calculated in relation to half of the price paid for the ticket. In the same way the price for a delayed service under any other form of transport contract allowing travelling several subsequent legs shall be calculated in proportion to the full price.

The calculation of the period of delay shall not take into account any delay that the railway undertaking can demonstrate as having occurred outside the territories in which the Treaty establishing the European Community is applied.

2. The compensation of the ticket price shall be paid within one month after the submission of the request for compensation. The compensation may be paid in vouchers and/or other services if the terms are flexible (in particular regarding the validity period and destination). The compensation shall be paid in money at the request of the passenger.

3. The compensation of the ticket price shall not be reduced by financial transaction costs such as fees, telephone costs or stamps. Railway undertakings may introduce a minimum threshold under which payments for compensation will not be paid. This threshold shall not exceed EUR 4.

4. The passenger shall not have any right to compensation if he is informed of a delay before he buys a ticket, or if a delay due to continuation on a different service or re-routing remains below 60 minutes.

[ExXB]

What I find remarkable about this ruling is that the ECJ is now 'making' law through their interpretations.

The regulation clearly omits compensation for delays, and the record in drafting the regulation clearly indicates that this was intentional. While the EC wanted it to neither the Council nor the Parliament agreed.

The court ruled that the Regulation SHOULD have included it, and the arguments made on why it didn't include it were not valid, in their opinion.

I am surprised that we haven't heard anything from the Parliament about the ECJ overruling a decision they had made.

Does anyone have a link to the actual ruling. I'd like to read it myself.

[The SSK]

Here you go

InfoCuria (http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d2dc30dbfd285e35d92243aaab97e2b3 65605282.e34KaxiLc3qMb40Rch0SaxuKbxb0?text=&docid=128861&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1025840)

[The SSK]

edi_local: in cases where they clearly are to blame (over selling, delays due to technical faults for example)

Really? Are you to blame if your regularly-serviced car develops a technical fault?

Aircraft are regularly serviced, to the most rigorous standards, mandated by law and overseen by highly qualified government inspectors. Technical faults are not commonplace and they are not factored into the business model. They are exceptional circumstances.

[Hipennine]

"Really? Are you to blame if your regularly-serviced car develops a technical fault?"

My car has a warranty for life which provides a get you to your destination guarantee irresepective of what goes wrong, as long as it has been correctly serviced by an approved dealer.

Technical fault occurrence is built into business plans. There is much talk on these fora about the pros and cons of newer versus older aircraft for reliability versus safety. The disruption that goes along with the potential lower reliability of older aircraft can be quite clearly seen in the business planning of different carriers. How often is there a comment on Pprune that "at least Jet2 do their best to get you there, rather than just cancelling the flight"

Even if a carrier choses do nothing to assist passengers as a result of a technical issue, there are still significant internal costs in dealing with it, and therefore any business plan will sensibly include a provision for disruption costs. The issue has been whether a carrier has chosen whether or not to include customer care in that provision. In the case of my car, the manufacturer has decided to include some of my disruption costs in their costs when their product fails.