Compensation question

[mattman]

Ok! So don't know how long this is going to stay on here.

So I decided to take some well earned rest and booked myself on a certain LLC for a few days in a sunny land.
So I arrive at the airport with time to spare, no liquids no baggage just me and the ole iPhone and passport. Boarding pass on the prescribed app. Proceed to security, fat man looks at the ole iPhone and says in basic English "you no fly now".

Ok so off to ticket desk. Technical delay 12 hours.
Ok! So now what, well I have now oodles of time and a far off poster catches my eye. Passenger rights. Right! Into the LLC app of to the terms and conditions locate the relevant claim thingy, simple enough and fire it off.
5 min later a reply, I am amazed, hold on I am not entitled to compensation as per EU article 261!
Which they kindly attached to said email.
But at further scrutiny see that the one document (they sent) and the other document (EU website) are different and seems to be doctored, so that the delay in the section one has been removed.
Now I might be just plain stupid or don't understand these things, but the basic question is what is going on here?

[RevMan2]

What is going on is standard practice with LCCs (and not only LCCs..). Suggest: Give your case to one of the ambulance chasers...er, consumer rights outfits..who will take 15% and let you keep your blood pressure at current levels

[SMT Member]

What happened is that the airline will try anything to wiggle their way out of a compensation claim, including telling bare faced lies.

A recent ruling found a passenger eligible for compensation after his flight had been delayed when it hit a flock of birds. Indeed, it has now been established that hitting birds is not an 'unforeseen' event, the sanity of which can be debated at length. Never the less, there is almost no event the airlines can hide behind anymore; weather, technical problems, sickness, understaffing and now birds - they are all 'foreseeable' events, and if you're delayed they need to pay up.

There are many, many lawyers/companies around specialising in EU261. They take from between 15 to 30% of the compensation.

[Hotel Tango]

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

mattman It probably won't stay on here too long. Your post is in the wrong forum. You will find lots more help and tips in the SLF forum.

[DaveReidUK]

But at further scrutiny see that the one document (they sent) and the other document (EU website) are different and seems to be doctored, so that the delay in the section one has been removed

If that's true, it's bordering on fraud.

[16024]

Actually, R&N is a very good place for it to be. I think we get a bit precious about what is news here.
Southwest productivity or Emirates Fatigue could arguably go into Terms and Endearment. Whatever.
EU261 is not just about money grabbing self-entitlement and ambulance chasing, although you will all have your own views on that...
Point is, protecting our company from a £50k bill has a real impact on our tactical operation. For a relatively prosaic example, do we wait for delayed catering/toilet servicing or get cracking with less-than-perfect customer service to save the fine, and then find we would have been exempt.
It is still work in progress, and test cases are still being set.
Yes, it's news.

[Trav a la]

A technical delay does not count as an 'extraordinary circumstance' so compensation is payable.

Airlines do not have to pay compenstaion for things which are external to them e.g ATC strikes, manufacturing defects, civil unrest etc. Almost everything else is not classed as an EC.

[philbky]

Having had a four hour delay ex IAH on BA in 2014 due to a birdstrike penetrating a forward window on a 747, with only pretzels and water offered and me having to sort out the onward connection on a BA/EI codeshare, as BA on the ground at IAH and in the air seemed incapable of finding the onward connection, I put in a claim for my wife and myself. Rejected by BA, complained to the CAA who were toothless then tried two ambulance chasers with the same result.

It seems that unless there is a cohort of pax working in unison, airlines divide and conquer. BA is as bad as Ryanair in so far as their UK annoy the customer department can only be reached from Ireland on a non geographic number, they keep you on hold playing their inane music and protestations of how important you are to them, and the whole structure is geared to put you off.

[ExXB]

From the OP's story he failed to present himself at the gate in a timely manner. The airline is not responsible for paying compensation in these circumstances.

The regulation (as amended by ECJ judgements) applies when a flight is cancelled, or delayed more than three hours. Neither of these appear to the case here. It also applies to 'denied boarding' which doesn't appear to be the case either, as the passenger never arrived at the gate.

The fact he was prevented from doing so by a third party is irrelevant to the airline. Any claims for damages should be presented to the airport/security company. (A little clarity on where this happened would also have been helpful)

The 'differences' in the documents are likely as the airline quoted the Regulation as adopted by the Parliament and the Council, while the EC site (got a link?) probably embellishes that with their interpretation of how ECJ rulings may affect the Regulation (something the ECJ has not done.)

In any case this was not an delay of more than three hours caused by the airline. R261 does not apply.

[RevMan2]

From the OP's story he failed to present himself at the gate in a timely manner.

Didn't read that at all. Said he was at the airport with plenty of time, security sent him back to the ticket desk, ticket desk informed him of a 12 hour tech delay...

[Trav a la]

WxXB,

Yes, the op's post is very unclear and short on detail, some clarity would help to decide the matter.

However, the op does say "So I arrive at the airport with time to spare"

I cannot see where he says that he 'failed to present himself at the gate in a timely manner' tho.

Op says "Ok so off to ticket desk. Technical delay 12 hours." Which suggests to me that the ticket desk informed him that there was a delay of 12 hours due to a technical fault/reason.

[ExXB]

Well I made an assumption, perhaps an incorrect one.

[FrontSeatPhil]

Never had an issue claiming compensation, even on a BA flight that was 3h06 late (so just over the limit.)

Every time it's been agreed and paid without argument.

Regarding rights and wrongs, I don't always agree that compensation should be paid, but if it's available then I'll take it.

When BA cancel a flight due to 'staffing issues' and I then can't get to Germany to drive a specific car, that means magazines and websites don't get their first drive review and I don't get paid, so in that instance the small amount of compensation helps ease my pain, both mentally and financially.

However, should I really get hundreds of pounds back when I've booked a £30 fare somewhere and it makes no odds if I'm late or not? Probably not.

I'd never considered the pressure it might put on the crew though. Interesting comment about waiting for catering or flying away without stock. Do the crew care about the business end of the industry? If so, where does the line get drawn?

[parabellum]

Crew most certainly do get interested in the commercial/business end of the industry when it effects safety. Safety should win every time.
To depart or not for a commercial matter that may result in compensation payments is not normally a crew call, this is what station managers and senior traffic officers are for, in their absence and no communication with base then the captain may have to decide.

[StudentInDebt]

Get the relevant paragraph from the regulation and any supporting precedents, write a letter to the airline concerned giving 14 days to pay compensation due, if no result write another letter giving 14 days to pay or small-claims action will follow (assuming OP is resident in UK, adjust accordingly for your local jurisdiction). Take cheque to bank when it arrives.

[Piltdown Man]

As if by magic, here are the questions and answers. (http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/passengers/air/doc/neb/questions_answers.pdf_reg_2004_261.pdf)

And here is the regulation. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:439cd3a7-fd3c-4da7-8bf4-b0f60600c1d6.0004.02/DOC_1&format=PDF)

Pre-amble notes 14 & 15 set the context under which compensation is payable. All you have to do is prove that the this delay was not due to extraordinary circumstances. Fortunately for you, I believe that many technical problems are considered as foreseable events and airlines have been forced to cough up.

Whether is is regulation is moral or not is a different question. Travel by train, bus and ship doesn't have such onerous fines placed upon them, so why shoild airlines. And why should compensation exceed the actual ticket price?

And the bigger picture? How much do you trust big companies? This regulation could well drive some underfunded airlines into bankruptcy (it already does severe damage to healthy ones). So imagine a longhaul aircraft due to fly several hundred people grounded with a broken component. But with the threat of loosing one's job, this aircraft could become instantly serviceable. It then departs... How safe do you feel now? For parallels, you only have to look at some of the scandals in the NHS.

PM

[Weeonerotate]

The compensation rules have gotten out of hand, and is utterly unfair to the industri. I understand 100% why the companies do whatever they can not to pay.
Everybody working in the industri should know this, and should shake their heads.. Want it or not... There will be commercial pressure on the pilots to get moving.

[Trav a la]

Piltdown Man,

I believe that you underestimate some airlines.

Ryanair, for instance, have been charging every PAX a 261 levy of €2 on each sector flown since 2011. They have built up a surplus of hundreds of millions of Euro’s but they don't advertise the fact and hardly a single PAX is aware of it. That levy was increased to €2.50 per sector in March 2013.

Their T's & C's don't itemise what charges the PAX's actually pay.

I'm sure others may also charge a 261 levy, but it's difficult to find hard evidence when T's & C's are allowed to be so opaque.

261 compensation is a fixed amount dependant on distance and time, but only if you apply for it, most don’t. I would imagine that the reason for this is a general lack of knowledge about the regulation and also the way airlines have been over zealous in defending valid claims.

Why should the compensation amount exceed the ticket price? Because the ticket price and the fixed amount of compensation are not related. Just as there is no relationship between the amount of compensation and the additional costs incurred by the PAX when delays occur.

So far as a pilot being threatened with losing his/her job if he/she refused to fly an unsafe aircraft, well, I just couldn't even begin to contemplate that scenario ever happening. This is just unfounded scaremongering and if you know otherwise I suggest you report it.

I implicitly trust the flight crew operating each and every flight that I and my family board, I'm confident their highest priority is safety without compromise of any kind.

Perhaps a simple answer to this problem would be for all airlines subjected to EU261 regs to charge a (say) €2 levy per PAX per sector, akin to an insurance policy. The airline could then automatically pay compensation to claimants with a qualifying claim. No quibbling, no court cases, no NWNF claims companies and most of all no hassle.

On the down side, could this de incentivise the airlines from improving on-time performance!

[ExXB]

Why should the compensation amount exceed the ticket price? Because the ticket price and the fixed amount of compensation are not related. Just as there is no relationship between the amount of compensation and the additional costs incurred by the PAX when delays occur.

So why does the regulation (1371/2007) on rail fix the compensation as a (relatively small) percentage of the fare?

If you decide to continue your journey as planned or to accept alternative transport to your destination, you may be entitled to compensation of:

25% of the ticket fare, if the train is between 1 and 2 hours late.
50% of the fare, if the train is more than 2 hours late.

[HeartyMeatballs]

I doubt any crew would be pressured into flying. If they were you refuse and file a MOR.

What will happen is defects will simply be further deferred until the last minute. Yes, the MEL allows departure with certain unservicabilities and is safe however you'll always loose some redundancy. If you're departing with multiple ADDs then one could argue that safety standards are somewhat reduced. This will only increase the amount of ADDs that aircraft are carrying reducing safety margins and in some cases passenger comfort (APU inop or issues with cabin heating etc). Single toilet ops - with a queue down the cabin, slowing down the service, bumped shoulders etc. Not to mention the state of it after 149 have had a go.

Me personally I would like everything to be in tip top condition. Afterall redundancies are built into every aircraft for a reason. EU261 in increasing the amount of ADDs and thus reducing redundancy and degrading safety.

But you all want to fly for the price of a round of drinks, want £1 cans of beer onboard and compensation many times what you paid for the ticket.

You reap what you sow.

Out of interest, has OTP improved since the glorious EU introduced EU261? Me thinks the fine wine was flowing at the working lunch where they devised the regulation. That'll learn the airlines for delaying their flights to or from BRU.

[PAXboy]

HeartyMeatballs. I am very cynical so I think two things:


Some aircrew WILL feel pressured into departing with something (small) adrift. We are human beings.
I don't think it was the boys in BRU who thought this one up by themselves. I have always thought that the legacy carriers wanted it as they thought it might level the field with regards to those on two single tickets, as opposed to them with linked through flights. It may have backfired somewhat ...
I reckon that many have been surprised at the success of FR (once again) turning it around by levelling the tax and profiting HUGELY from that.
I reckon that many have been surprised at the continuing demand for service in /across Europe that has become an enormous barrier due to volume and the inability of Euro nations to harmonise their act. (also know as getting their $hit together) For THAT you can blame the folks in BRU.

[HeartyMeatballs]

Well the thing is we are all paying for it in higher airfares. The difference with FR is that they tell you up front and don't just raise the fares.

The only beneficiaries here are the bottom feeding ambulance chacers. Certainly not the passenger nor safety standards.

[PAXboy]

Friends of mine who recently gained EU261 payback certainly liked it.

[Heathrow Harry]

Meatballs - is it wrong to expect someone selling you a service to actually perform as advertised?

If Ford sold you a car with only three wheels you'd be pretty unhappy - why should airlines be any different?? They take our cash and then don't perform..........

[Rwy in Sight]

Flight International mentioned back when 261 was introduced that the Regulation was adopted because an EU bureaucrat was frustrated to being dump on his Sunday evening flights to Brussels as overbooked.

HeartyMeatballs, very logical comments on who pays the cost of compensation.

[HeartyMeatballs]

If I pay someone £500 to paint all of the doors in my house, and he turns up late, I don't demand he pay me £2000 compensation. If paints 9 doors but he misses on door off I similarly don't expect £2000 compensation.

If I pay an airline €40 and it delivers the product, only 3+ hours late, somehow I am to expect ten times what I paid for the ticket back in compensation even though the airline did what I paid it to do - and get me from A to B.

I'd expect some reasonable remedy. I'd certainly knock £50 off what I pay my painter. I would not expect him to then pay me £2000 when he has in fact delivered most of what he was contracted to do.

If Ford told you your car would be delivered on Friday and it didn't turn up until the Monday, should you expect many times what you paid for the car back in compensation? After all they still provided you with a car which they've paid to produce only later than planned.

A reasonable refund or compensation for example a percent gage back or vouchers is reasonable. I don't think people are deserving of hundreds of euro just for being a few hours late.

I'm just waiting for weather to be claimable. Then just see where safety standards go. That CB on approach? Just buckle up and hope for the best. That little bit of frost on the wing? Let's not wait for the de-icer as there's a two hour wait (this really does happen). Let's just hope it'll blow off or maybe we will taxi close behind the traffic in front to see if their jet blast will melt it off.

I work for one of the most financially secure airlines in the world. We have no pressure to depart when it is not safe to do so. If I worked for a smaller outfit or one that wasn't as secure then there is a risk that corners will be cut.

[Rwy in Sight]

maybe we will taxi close behind the traffic in front to see if their jet blast will melt it off.

When it did happen no compensation was due for delays.

Also in your examples a door not painted, or a car not deliver when it is due have (in general) less severe consequences or are more easily managed than a pax stranded due to an airline's fault away from home and having to cope with hotels and various expenses.

[TURIN]

So far as a pilot being threatened with losing his/her job if he/she refused to fly an unsafe aircraft, well, I just couldn't even begin to contemplate that scenario ever happening. This is just unfounded scaremongering and if you know otherwise I suggest you report it.

I implicitly trust the flight crew operating each and every flight that I and my family board, I'm confident their highest priority is safety without compromise of any kind.

It isn't just pilots under pressure.
Dispatchers and engineers are all being pressurised to avoid delays.
See how much compensation you get when the aircraft takes off out of trim due to incorrect loading or a hastily signed off tech problem, and piles in over the threshold.

This will all end in tears.

[HeartyMeatballs]

RWY in sight. It does have serious consequences when cars are delayed. How else am I supposed to gets the children to or from school or their numerous after school activities. And as for painting my doors, it does have a knock on consequence of the upheaval having to cover up the floor and walls and booking someone in and taking another day off work as some how tradies only seem to work 9-5 mon-fri.

For as long as I remember airlines have provided welfare, accommodation and food or reimbursement for these expenses. They are still doing this, but with the added burden of paying hundreds of euro in additional compensation. EU261 is not given at the airport. Passengers have to claim for it just like they will for their expenses incurred.

TURIN - I completely agree. Not only are we all paying higher ticket prices for no quantifiable benefit (I've seen no evidence of OTP improving which was the aim of EU261), safety standards have fallen, margins degraded. We risk many decades of safety advances being brushed aside.

[ExXB]

Flight International mentioned back when 261 was introduced that the Regulation was adopted because an EU bureaucrat was frustrated to being dump on his Sunday evening flights to Brussels as overbooked.

As I heard it, it was a eurocrat who showed up at the gate after the doors were closed and was refused boarding. Wouldn't even qualify for compensation under the regulation, but he wanted the airlines to be punished.

The compensation amounts for cancellation were set at PUNITIVE levels to stop airlines cancelling flights for economic reasons. (Although a subsequent study after implementation showed no significant changes in rate of cancellations)

The regulation did not include compensation amounts for delays because of the fear of unforeseen consequences (as suggested above). However the ECJ decided that this wasn't fair because some delays could be as bad as a cancellation so they ruled that the punitive levels would also apply to almost all delays of more than 3 hours.

[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)

[Trav a la]

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.

[RAT 5]

Does someone have the definitive answer to this scenario.
You arrive at the airport in reasonable time, i.e. before the checkin is closed + a buffer. You checkin at a desk provided by the airline in question. You then arrive at security where there is a huge delay due to either lack of staff or broken equipment. It is a major airport wth multiple departure runways, many wide-body flights and so many many pax with flights departing within the next hour. All pax are trying to get to jump the queue. You miss your flight due to Airport services. Where do you stand for compensation? Does EU261 cover only claims against the airline; what about other links in the chain.

If the EU-crats dreamed up this EU261 deal because of their own irritation at delayed flights, as alleged by someone, did they also apply it to Eurostar?

[ExXB]

RAT5, if the passenger fails to reach the gate on time, as stipulated on the documents, through no fault of the airline, then r261 does not apply. Any recourse with airport/security companies through the normal legal processes.

The Eurocrats do have a regulation for rail transport, but the compensation amounts are fixed at a percentage of the fair paid - they were not set at punitive levels.

[RAT 5]

Any recourse with airport/security companies through the normal legal processes.

Thank you. It seems this is a breakdown in the equality process of the whole operation. Claiming from an Airline under EU261 might seem simple, but as has been reported, airlines, like insurance companies, are masters at wiggling out of paying compensation; perhaps even with mis-information. However, the passengers' rights are well documented.
Having to claim against an airport via the normal legal channels would seem very deterring and often difficult to prove, and expensive. Missing your flight could turn out to be very expensive, though. There would be more wiggle room for the airport to deny liability than an airline.
Was there not a case some years ago at STN, where 00's of RYR pax missed flights due to lack of checkin desks? However, that would be because the airline did not pay for enough desks to cover its flights in that period. EU261 would have effect, but tricky to prove. Now the same things happen with security channels, which is the airport's fault. No EU261. Seems unbalanced from a 'consumers rights' point of view.

[ExXB]

RAT5 absolutely right, but this regulation is designed to "punish" airlines for their overbooking and cancellation practices. And if you sue someone it is for actual proven loses, not for a fixed punitive compensation amount.

The EC wanted to ban overbooking until it was carefully explained to them the very large numbers of passengers that benefit from the practices. So they agreed that punitive compensation amounts were to apply to change the airline's behaviour. Funny, there has been no measurable change in the rate of involuntary denied boarding.

[Hipennine]

Wrt the airport vs airline responsibility question, in the UK, there is no problem issuing a single summons against both. Then assuming the judge decides in your favour, he/she will also decide who coughs up, and by how much.

There is greater incentive for either of them to agree a settlement out of court, in order to avoid the potential situation of their expensive lawyers attacking/defending each other for an extended period, rather than just trying to demolish your argument.

[HeartyMeatballs]

How much compensation can I claim if my flight diverts because of a medical and I am delayed? Passengers get sick. That is not an exceptional circumstance therefore surely I'm entitled to a bit compo?

[seafire6b]

I disagree HeartyMeatballs. By its very nature, a flight diversion, for any reason, is "exceptional". Doubtless any statistics on the subject will confirm this. After all, what percentage of flights fail to arrive at their planned destination, or make an unscheduled landing en-route? "Exceptionally" few.

[HeartyMeatballs]

No I disagree. Out of 3/400 people on a long flight particularly with an early morning departure there's a good chance someone would get sick. How many aircraft get hit by lightening or have a bird strike. Exceptionally few yet I would still get my luvvily EU compensation so why not a medical diversion? Or if a pax is sick on arrival and it takes forever to board and the outbound is delayed then I should get money. Or if a flight is delayed 2.5 hours, someone gets sick and I'm delayed getting off because we are asked to remain seated so the ambulance crews can perform CPR. Surely I should get compensation then?

[ExXB]

Please, do you really want to put a flight crew in the position where if they divert it could cost their company €600 x (the number of passengers). A quarter of a million euros? If I was ill I wouldn't want them to think twice.

[seafire6b]

HeartyMeatballs Sorry, but you originally said "...if my flight diverts because of a medical..." and that was the sole point I addressed. Diversions are exceptional and on that basis, I'd certainly support an airline's according refusal to pay compensation.

ExXB Agreed. Hopefully, no-one with a modicum of even near-sanity would question a Captain's decision for a medical related diversion. I'm entirely with you on that!

[HeartyMeatballs]

I think the whole thing is a joke to be honest with you. But this is exactly what could happen as EU261 encompasses more and more things and excludes more things as an exceptional circumstance. When it does you will see aircraft continuing instead of diverting. Put simply the cost of a life to an airline (and we all know they'll have a figure on this) is probably less than a plane full of EU261 claims. Given what I said earlier, all it would take would be someone with deep pockets and a lawyer to take on their claim. If they win then you could find that medical diversions are no longer an extraordinary circumstance.

I say again, you reap what you sow.

[ExXB]

As written (ie before the ECJ's judgements are superimposed over the top of text of the badly written Regulation) the Regulation only talks about delays in departure, not arrival.

The ECJ says that the Regulation should also apply to delays of over three hours, but has not included an interpretation if this is on departure or arrival.

So a flight with an on time departure which diverts isn't covered by the Regulation (One could argue). Can hardly wait for the lawyers to argue this one.

[Chesty Morgan]

HeartyMeatballs. I am very cynical so I think two things:

[LIST=1]
Some aircrew WILL feel pressured into departing with something (small) adrift. We are human...

Please substantiate this claim with some real world examples or first hand evidence.

[Trav a la]

ExXB

It's all been clarified.

It was the Henning judgment from September 2014 which stipulates that “arrival time” for the purposes of calculating a delay is the moment that at least one of the doors of the aircraft is opened, the assumption being that this is the moment a passenger is permitted to leave the aircraft.

That is the current situation.

[PAXboy]

Chesty Morgan
Please substantiate this claim with some real world examples or first hand evidence.Where did I 'claim' anything? You quote me from post #21 and I used the word 'think', making no claim. So no example or evidence required.

If you would like the thinking behind my thought, I shall happily oblige.

[Chesty Morgan]

Right, so you have nothing. You actually said.
I am very cynical so I think two things:
[LIST=1] Some aircrew WILL feel pressured into departing with something (small) adrift

That's a definitive statement.

[PAXboy]

It is a definitive statement of my opinion based on human experience.
Right, so you have nothing.You may call it what you like but it is not a 'claim' it is an opinion.This website forum is for discussion and that was one of my contributions. Do feel free to ignore me. I also think there is a BLOCK feature that you can use so that you will never see my postings again. :ok:

[Chesty Morgan]

Pretty poor contribution. I suppose that you think you're some kind of expert because you sit in the back or airliners a bit and read PPRUNE daily.

Unfortunately you can't back up your statement with any facts so you've just made yourself look a bit silly. I enjoy watching that happen.

[PAXboy]

It is true that I have been sitting in airliners for over 50 years but I have been observing human nature longer. It is also true that a very close relative of mine has been in the airline industry for over 20 years.

I did not say my statement needed facts, as it was an opinion, but you always take it to be something else. I have offered to give you all the knowledge on which I based my opinion but you want something that I never said I had.

Here is the full text of what I said and not just the part that you used which was the bullet point:
I am very cynical so I think two things:


Some aircrew WILL feel pressured into departing with something (small) adrift. We are human beings.

Please contime to enjoy PPRuNe.

[Chesty Morgan]

I am saying your statement needs facts.

It is true that I have been sitting in airliners for over 50 years but I have been observing human nature longer. It is also true that a very close relative of mine has been in the airline industry for over 20 years.

None of which qualifies you to make definitive statements about airline operations. From your quote it is obvious that you don't know anywhere near as much as you think you do.

[PAXboy]

Before the Mods can this: "I think" is not a "definitive statement about airline operations" You obviously know considerably more than me about everything, including what I am not thinking and not saying.

[Chesty Morgan]

"WILL" is, however, a definitive statement.

The reason you're not saying anything is because you have no examples, first hand experience or knowledge of what you're talking about. You made a baseless, ignorant comment, which effectively calls into question the professionalism of aircrew and highlights your lack of knowledge of certain operational aspects, now you're back-pedalling and trying to play semantic games.

I do know considerably more than you about airline operations.

[PAXboy]

Oh dear.
I never said I had examples! You cannot ask for that which I did not say I had!

Nobody doubts that you know more about airline operations than me! I gave an opinion about human behaviour. No more and no less.

[Chesty Morgan]

Of course I can ask for examples. You made a statement you should be able to back it up. I'm asking you to do so. Evidence, knowledge, anything?

So far you have provided zero substantiation.

[S.o.S.]

Both of you have been here long enough to know the rules. In PPRuNe we have a well known dictum: Play the ball not the Player.

If PAXboy has erred, I think he has made his original intentions clear.
If Chesty Morgan wants to continue to flog this issue, please don't because you are looking very like a troll and they don't live long.

Now - has anyone got anything else constructive to say about compensation?

[Trav a la]

mattman
But at further scrutiny see that the one document (they sent) and the other document (EU website) are different and seems to be doctored, so that the delay in the section one has been removed.

Can you remove your personal details and post up the relevant part or the two documents you are referring to.

Cannot see the question being answered with any accuracy otherwise.

Sounds suspicious tho.

[PAXboy]

Business article in The Guardian
Airline passengers have had too much of a good thing over delay payouts
Take, for example, a colleague recently back from the Costa Dorada this summer. His Ryanair flight from Barcelona to London was delayed for more than three hours. He has since obtained €1,000 (£853) compensation for himself, wife and two children. How much did he pay for those flights? Less than £400. He feels like he has been given a free holiday.https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/28/airline-passengers-delayed-too-much-good-thing-eu261-compensation

This sums up what many have said in this thread, although it does not mention the data claim that has been mentioned here - that the fines have not made any significant difference to the amount of delays. That seems to be due to the complexity of the air space.

[Trav a la]

This sums up what many have said in this thread, although it does not mention the data claim that has been mentioned here - that the fines have not made any significant difference to the amount of delays. That seems to be due to the complexity of the air space.

WHAT? You'll have to explain what you mean a bit more clearly.

Why would you expect OTP to improve significantly when delay compensation only kicks in for delays over 3 hours. When a delay is under 3 hrs what incentive is there for the airlines to reduce it further. EU261 is only likely to reduce delays of over 3 hours so what do you expect?

[Chesty Morgan]

He expects us to leave on time but with defects that we shouldn't depart with!

[PAXboy]

Trav a la
Why would you expect OTP to improve significantly when delay compensation only kicks in for delays over 3 hours. When a delay is under 3 hrs what incentive is there for the airlines to reduce it further. EU261 is only likely to reduce delays of over 3 hours so what do you expect? I don't expect anything! I would never expect a law like this to improve OTP. I have always thought the law ridiculous.

I was just reporting an article in the news and reminding people of what had been said earlier. I posted a link to an article that reflected much of what has been said in here. I thought that some folks would be interested in that.

Chesty Morgan
He expects us to leave on time but with defects that we shouldn't depart with!When have I ever said that I want that? Please stop putting words into my posting. The original words in the thread are plain for all to see.

[Chesty Morgan]

Expect and want have two different meanings.