Airlines must pay compensation for delays from mechanical failure

[Mark in CA]

This seems to have been overlooked here, so here it is:

Floodgates open for flight delay claims | Money | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/sep/19/flight-delay-claims-compensation-airlines-passengers)

[Piltdown Man]

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

[ExXB]

PM,
A new version of Regulation 261 is currently before the European Parliament and has been for a couple of years.

And before some anti-EU wag points to their inaction on this to demonstrate ... whatever it is they want to demonstrate, the reason it is held up is simply that two governments, who cannot agree the status of a bit of land separating the Mediterranean and Atlantic oceans, refuse to let it go to a vote.

My goodness, they have been arguing about this bit of land since 1703, do you ever think that they can come to an agreement on this? Not in our lifetimes.

[Piltdown Man]

ExXB - I'm afraid you are correct. But for compensation, like so many other things, I'm convinced we paying the price for allowing un-elected (& un-electable) and totally unaccountable bureaucrats somewhere in Europe to meddle in our daily lives.

PM

[mockingjay]

A dark day for aviation. Not only will everyone now suffer through paying extra for their ticket there is the massive ramifications that this will cause and safety will suffer.

More aircraft will carry more differed defects. That tyre that technically should be changed (but is legal for another week) will be allowed to fly just so that there's no delays. System redundancy and backups will reduce as flights will leave with defective systems.

Flights will leave with one or two more U/S toilets. Flights will leave with the IFE not working. A defective seat won't be fixed as it would be cheaper just to bump the pax in that seat than delay the whole flight.

Attitudes will change. Instead of safety becoming paramount and will so many fail safes, airlines will take the attitude of dispatching flights as long as it is legal. I don't know about you but I'd rather my airline be safe as houses rather than just the bare legal minimum.

[alserire]

Agreed mockingjay.

The EU are totally over reaching here. You travel, you get delayed. Stuff happens.

I'd rather be delayed, safe and alive than well compensated and dead :eek:

[Hotel Tango]

Let's not forget why we have got to this point. There was a time when fares were higher but at the same time airlines took much better care of their passengers when their flight was delayed or cancelled. Consequently there were fewer complaints. Then came the LCC model which, in the case of one well known LCC, developed a policy of effectively not caring a toss about their passengers in the event of delays and or cancellations. Complaints reached all time highs and, in a nutshell, this is what has eventually brought us to the point we're at today.

[PAXboy]

Compensation has to have limits. It is similar in the railiway world where, if a bridge gets struck by a lorry and is closed for 12 hours for inspection - the railways have to pay.

Recently, one traffic jam of 2.75 hours cost me £600. Compensation due to the failure of the airline should match the problem.

[GrahamO]

Why should the level of compensation exceed the cost of the product?

Why shouldn't it ?

If you have 99% of a car available then the consumer should be happy to pay 99% of the hire price surely ? The fact that the 1% is the fuel tank is not relevant surely ?

People spend thousands of pounds on travel (holidays, business etc) and to have all that wasted because one element fails is not reasonable.

Why should this apply to air travel only?

No reason why it should - except in many other forms of transport there are practical alternatives. In contracts, its relatively normal to not have liabilities capped at the value of the actual defective item. Air travel should be no different.

I find it interesting that you (and others) automatically assume that the unintended consequences are that defective or unsafe aircraft will be flying. My view if that the airlines will have to maintain equipment to better standards and if in doubt, change it out.

Preventive rather than reactive maintenance will always be better and somehow I mistrust airlines to spend a single penny if they can avoid doing so, if it means early defect replacement rather than awaiting it to fail and delay passengers at little cost to them but hundreds of thousands of $'s to the combined passenger numbers.

[Davef68]

I have two minds about this - there is an arguement that the level of compensation is too high, especially for LCCs, but you also have to factor the inconvenience and the way the airlines treat passengers.

I recently was on a flight where my connecting flight was cancelled and I was left stuck in Manchester overnight, the airline gave us overnight accomodation and breakfast (but no evening meal beyond a £5 voucher for the airport) and got us home the next morning but I had to miss several important meetings at work that day..

On another occasion I was delayed 6 hours on an LGW to EDI flight, due out at 1800, eventually got home at 0130. Again, the only thing we got was a £5 voucher (Have you tried to buy a meal at LGW with £5? :-)) but beyond getting to bed a bit late there was no other issue.

On both occasions, under the new judgement I would have been entitled to the full E250 compensation, but my loss was significantly different - as, it has to be said, was the costs of the flights!

[B Fraser]

There are 1,600 Euros heading my way for a 4 hour delay back from Crete. That will pay for next year's flights on the annual bucket and spade jaunt with some spending dosh left over.


Aircraft go tech with knock-on delays. It's called life and as long as the airline does their best to handle it, there's nothing else to be done. What utter madness.

[GrahamO]

Aircraft go tech with knock-on delays. It's called life

Its called insufficient preventive maintenance, reliance upon failure as a mode of defect identifications and hardly improved by having no local maintenance agreements, no local spares etc.

Its about sweating the assets such that they can only run to schedule if nothing goes wrong and there are zero delays with ground activities.

Personally I want to get there on time, even if time id slightly later as I can build that into my plans - but what I and many others do not wish to accept is continual delays brought about by reliance upon perfection at every stage of their process being the only way that the flight will be on time.

Those that use FlyDubai will know that T2 at DXB used to be the fastest, easiest and easiest way to get around the region - front door to gate in less than 10 minutes, 10 minute bus shuttle and coming back was even better. Unfortunately, they have become so unreliable that the 40 minute wander through T3, higher prices for the full fare airlines is now more acceptable to anyone on business who travels their routes regularly.

In fact, it got so bad for their Riyadh flights in late 2014 that the three FlyDubai flights were reduced to 1 when Riyadh terminated their afternoon and evening slots as the cumulative effect of delays (same aircraft shuttling back and forth) meant their later flights were almost always 1-2 hours late and this had a knock on effect at Riyadh.

Chapeau to the Saudi's for throwing them out unless they improved and of course they didn't.

Maybe the low cost airlines in Europe need some slots terminating as well if they don;t keep to the schedule ?

[ExXB]

Many (if not all) airports served by FR have no 'slots'.

[edi_local]

In my experience it's not the low cost airlines who have on time problems. Far from it in fact. I have flown over 150 times with FR and EZY combined and only three times have suffered a delay of more than 2 hours and never more than 4. All 3 times it was down to weather.

Now the 3 legacy carriers I have actually worked for tell a very different tale. Daily cancellations or severe delays on the same routes at peak travel times due to aircraft swaps, technical faults, cabin configuration changes or downgrades. Countless misconnections due to unachievable timetables and minimum connection times. You don't get these issues on the low cost carriers.

If I consider the number of times I've personally been delayed on legacy carriers where external forces were not to blame then I'll admit it's not many, but it's far more than the low cost carriers. I have flown on legacy carriers roughly the same amount of times as I have LCCs.

The low cost carriers, in my view are doing it right, the legacy carriers need a kick up the backside!

[wiggy]

Now the 3 legacy carriers I have actually worked for tell a very different tale.......Countless misconnections due to unachievable timetables and minimum connection times. You don't get these issues on the low cost carriers.

Do many/any of the LoCos actually do formal "connections?

I also have to say I stopped using one particular LoCo because the late evening flight of most use to me was regularly so late (>= 2 hours most flights I was on one summer) into Gatwick that public transport to onwards destinations around LGW had pretty much stopped.

[Ancient Observer]

The law was created by Politicians and Civil servants who got fed up with all the delays as they flew between their different locations.
The fact is that airline schedules had been created in such a way that modest delays early in the day became hours of delays at the end of the day.
And no one in the airlines seemed to care. Locos and Legacy carriers both did the same. (Ezy at its worst was as bad as BA).
All the legislation did was to force airlines to think differently. Rather than "it doesn't matter" they now have what civil servants call "incentives" to get their planes running on time.
It just caused a very small change in the airlines' business model.
They can still make profits - they just have to do it in a different way.

[bingofuel]

If a Politician or Civil Servant was to receive financial compensation for the delay of a flight, when the ticket was purchased by the taxpayer, I wonder how many would forward the compensation to the Treasury and how many would 'forget' to do so?

[ExXB]

Now that is a good question. Who is entitled to the compensation? The purchaser or the passenger? Under contract law it would be the purchaser, but the way that Regulation 261 is written it suggests it is the passenger.

R261 is renowned for its poor drafting, which this question also shows.

[Ancient Observer]

One tour Company that I used tried to "steal" my Ezy compensation.
Ezy cancelled an early morning flight from LGW. We were already in Departures. No reason given. Certainly not "Exceptional".

I wrote in and claimed compensation. No reply. So I happened to know (distantly) a then Ezy Director, and e-mailed him. I copied it to the relevant CAA Director.

They called. Compensation had been paid. To the Tour Company.

I called the tour Company. They started off denying it. So more e-mails to CAA and Ezy.
Tour Company eventually owned up. The boss was alleged to have said that they deserved it, and SWMBO and I did not. Er, what? Who lost a week's holiday?
I wonder how many others this Company have conned. i can't name them as I no longer have the e-mails to prove this story.

[Exup]

Does that mean you can now sue your local taxi driver or bus company if they are late for a tech problem. Aircraft are extremely complicated & anyone who thinks you can predict all failures has no idea what they are on about. Sometime things happen that is out of everyones control & no amount of forward planning have changed it.

[Hotel Tango]

Does that mean you can now sue your local taxi driver or bus company if they are late for a tech problem.

Yes, if it's more than an acceptable delay. The thing is that if your bus or taxi breaks down, generally a replacement will be along within 10 to 30 minutes. If a taxi/bus firm left me stranded for more than 3 hours and I missed my non-refundable flight as a consequence for instance, you can bet that I would most certainly claim compensation! I do however build in my own buffer of 60 minutes with my taxi/bus timings in the event of a delay. Of course, if they were delayed by unforeseen traffic congestion I would claim from my travel insurance.

[Piltdown Man]

HT - I believe you have poor grasp of what is reasonable. Claiming compensation for subsequent losses as a result of a cab/bus running late is morally wrong unless you told the carrier of the consequences of such outcomes before they agreed to provide you with a service. You lack a moral compass. It's as unfair as me taking you to court for stress incurred from reading your posts on pprune. But, what I'll do, as I have spare cash, is see if I can do that. If such action is possible, we'll have a fine day in court! I hope you are rich. I'm looking forward to it already.

PM

[Hartington]

An earlier post talks about changing the way airlines think. I may have an example. Two weeks ago I flew LGW/AGP on BA. When we checked there was a 40ish minute delay posted. We finally departed about 90 late. It was only when the Captain mentioned this wasn't the plane that was supposed to operate this flight that I wondered if a substitution had occurred to avoid compensation. No proof, just me surmising.

Things HAVE changed. In the late 70s I was a travel agent and went to HKG on BA. On the day of our return a tropical storm blew in and closed Kai Tak for about 36 hours. I was using an agent discount but there was no argument they just put me in a hotel (can't remember the meal deal).

Only a few months later I was in Nepal, two days walk from the nearest road. But the village had an airfield (only 3 hours walk) and I had a reservation back to Kathmandu. Checked in, went through security (oh please, the whole airport building was a two room hut!) and settled down to wait. After a while THE RNAC employee announced the flight was cancelled BUThe stressed, it would come the next day. Nobody believed him and everyone just started walking to Pokhara. After a night on the trail we got to Pokhara in time for the late flight but it was ... cancelled. Next morning the plane made an attempt to take a load on sacks to Jomsom, failed and finally we were on our way back to KTM. I doubt much has changed in the intervening 35 odd years. God help them if the compensation culture gets to Nepal.

[Piltdown Man]

I work for a largish airline and I can tell you for certain that the decision to cancel a flight is not taken lightly. The decision itself is taken by our Operations department and they use a cost tool to help them make their decision. I believe no flight can be cancelled without some cost and that applies to flights that are scheduled to operate in six months time. The costs include marketing costs, loss of reputation, goodwill as well as the direct costs. Not surprisingly, compensation features prominently in the list of costs. This element becomes one of the greatest costs from two weeks before departure until the flight has been completed. And by completed, I mean the passengers have had the opportunity to get to the destination they booked and paid to go to.

PM