Passengers win right to compensation when flights cancelled for technical faults
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: swindon
Age: 44
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
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.
Paxing All Over The World
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??
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??
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: swindon
Age: 44
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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 - 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)
Paxing All Over The World
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bordeaux, France
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: I'll go and ask the Captain
Posts: 643
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lexxity
Well said 
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
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
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 ?
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 ?
Last edited by davidjohnson6; 30th Dec 2008 at 12:47.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: I'll go and ask the Captain
Posts: 643
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DJ6
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
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
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....
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....
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: I'll go and ask the Captain
Posts: 643
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bordeaux, France
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A/c do stop working every now and again, and I have never heard of my airline canceling a flight for no good reason.
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Abroad
Posts: 1,172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F3G,
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 
)
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]
* 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.
Here is the corresponding press release: Press Release No 100/08
Here is the relevant legislation: Regulation (EC) No 261/2004
Lastly, here is the text of the Montreal Convention 1999: Article 19 - Full Text
HTH.
This new ruling adds teeth to the legislation.
That's what's new.
That's what's new.
)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]
* 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.
Here is the corresponding press release: Press Release No 100/08
Here is the relevant legislation: Regulation (EC) No 261/2004
Lastly, here is the text of the Montreal Convention 1999: Article 19 - Full Text
HTH.
Riding the Euro Gravy Plane
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Strasbourg
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
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.
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.
Paxing All Over The World
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.
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.