Stranded passengers. This decision could be very far reaching
The insurance industry should have picked up the tab here, and not MOL or any airline.
If you hired a car and it wasn't available, you'd reasonably expect the car hire firm to sort it out and for you to not have to take out your own insurance to cover the failures of others.
Thats my view anyway.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Essex
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you hired a car and it wasn't available, you'd reasonably expect the car hire firm to sort it out and for you to not have to take out your own insurance to cover the failures of others.
Life is becoming wonderful as our sense of entitlement rises to the point where our every setback is for someone else to wear.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Regulation applies to ALL flights departing from an EU airport regardless of where an airline may have a registered business address. It also applies to all EU airlines' flights to an EU airport.
Last edited by ExXB; 2nd Feb 2013 at 13:15. Reason: typo
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good luck finding such insurance. It simply isn't available and if it was it would not be at a reasonable cost. As a result the airlines 'self-insure'. i.e. they don't give money to an insurance company, but pay out valid claims from their own reserves.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ExXB thanks for clarifying that point. If I was flying out and back DUB-JFK with say EI and my return flight was cancelled because the aircraft was 'stranded' in DUB would EI still have the duty of care even though I am a stranded passenger who is outside of the EU?
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scope
1. This Regulation shall apply:
(a) to passengers departing from an airport located in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies;
(b) to passengers departing from an airport located in a third country to an airport situated in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies, ... if the operating air carrier of the flight concerned is a Community carrier.
Note 'operating air carrier' - if code share flight is operated by non-EU airline they are not compelled by this regulation to provide care, although they may do so as a matter of policy.
Also this regulation also applies to Norway, Iceland and Switzerland on the same basis.
Last edited by ExXB; 2nd Feb 2013 at 15:28. Reason: Clarify point on non-EU airlines.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're a mine of information ExXB thank you.
Am I reading what you say correctly when I state Article 3(b) offers me assistance on a through ticket with SQ who ticket me DUB-LHR on EI and LHR-SIN on SQ but I'm not covered on the way back? If EI don't run the LHR-DUB sector, SQ
so in this case EI don't have to worry about Article 3.
Code:
Article 3;(b)
are not compelled by this regulation to provide care, although they may do so as a matter of policy
Last edited by Sober Lark; 2nd Feb 2013 at 16:48.
Good luck finding such insurance. It simply isn't available and if it was it would not be at a reasonable cost. As a result the airlines 'self-insure'. i.e. they don't give money to an insurance company, but pay out valid claims from their own reserves.
So if the car hire firm was unable to supply a car because car hire was banned following an environmental disaster then they should be expected to look after you until car hire became permissible again? Well that's a lot less bother than worrying about old-fashioned travel and credit card insurance.
If a business is going to take someones money for doing something, then they should not expect others to suffer because they cannot deliver against insurable risks. If they don't want to pay the insurance costs, then its not reasonable to expect to take folks money and just say 'tough luck'.
Paxing All Over The World
GrahamO
In an ideal world = Yes. But your competitor will choose to have no insurance, change the wording of their website to make it clear - and then lower prices.
The next company will cut out the radio/cd and lower prices ...
What do you do?
In the airline world - that is the story of the last 20 years and we are STILL spiralling downwards!
If a business is going to take someones money for doing something, then they should not expect others to suffer because they cannot deliver against insurable risks. If they don't want to pay the insurance costs, then its not reasonable to expect to take folks money and just say 'tough luck'
The next company will cut out the radio/cd and lower prices ...
What do you do?
In the airline world - that is the story of the last 20 years and we are STILL spiralling downwards!
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're a mine of information ExXB thank you.
Am I reading what you say correctly when I state Article 3(b) offers me assistance on a through ticket with SQ who ticket me DUB-LHR on EI and LHR-SIN on SQ but I'm not covered on the way back? If EI don't run the LHR-DUB sector, SQ so in this case EI don't have to worry about Article 3.
Code:
Article 3;(b)
The Regulation applies to all EI flights (unless they have a flight between two non-EU airports, which I don't think they do).On a journey DUB EI LHR SQ SIN SQ LHR EI DUB the Regulation applies to all flights, except the SQ flight SIN-LHR. That does not mean SQ doesn't provide care in some or all circumstances, just that they are not compelled to.
I find it amazing that sensible people still think that any problem they encounter has to be the fault of someone and that compensation can be claimed.
It was not Ryanair's fault that the airspace was closed. If you were at your home airport you could have gone home and if you were away you were stranded, but that is not Ryanair's fault. Yes, perhaps more could have been done voluntarily by airlines, but they do not have bottomless bank accounts and with a lost cost airline, you expect minimal service over and above what you have paid for.
I once ordered a specific type of rental car for a family of five plus large amounts of luggage. When I got to the desk I was given a much smaller car and the excuse was pitiful. I got annoyed and eventually it was swapped over. But, as has been said before, if the authorities had banned driving how could I expect the rental company to help me?
It was not Ryanair's fault that the airspace was closed. If you were at your home airport you could have gone home and if you were away you were stranded, but that is not Ryanair's fault. Yes, perhaps more could have been done voluntarily by airlines, but they do not have bottomless bank accounts and with a lost cost airline, you expect minimal service over and above what you have paid for.
I once ordered a specific type of rental car for a family of five plus large amounts of luggage. When I got to the desk I was given a much smaller car and the excuse was pitiful. I got annoyed and eventually it was swapped over. But, as has been said before, if the authorities had banned driving how could I expect the rental company to help me?
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This isn't about compensation, this is about care. Compensation is payable in some cases for delays, cancellations and denied boardings. Everyone agrees that compensation was not applicable for incidents resulting from the volcanic cloud.
Care, on the other hand, is something the vast majority of network airlines used to provide without a second thought. (Yes, there were always exceptions to this practice). The Regulators in Brussels considered practices of non-network airlines to be unfair since they didn't do the same thing. As this Regulation was being introduced the network airlines were nonplussed with these rules as they provided care anyway and, although nobody said so, they were happy to see some of the LCCs cost advantages being reduced. The LCCs hated this idea and fought bitterly. They lost.
So, airlines have an obligation to take care of their passengers regardless of the reasons for the incident. There is no time limit to such obligation written into the regulation, nor do I think there ever will be one. Delays of more than 24/48/72 hours are not common, but they do exist.
As noted above Cranair assesses all of their passengers a €2/£2 surcharge allegedly to cover these costs. My personal view is that they are overcharging for this and are being disingenuous if not deceptive (by blaming the Regulator for this charge) However in doing so they are self-insuring for these known and legally binding costs.
What did Cryanair get out of this? Simple, free publicity from the media in another feeding frenzy.
Care, on the other hand, is something the vast majority of network airlines used to provide without a second thought. (Yes, there were always exceptions to this practice). The Regulators in Brussels considered practices of non-network airlines to be unfair since they didn't do the same thing. As this Regulation was being introduced the network airlines were nonplussed with these rules as they provided care anyway and, although nobody said so, they were happy to see some of the LCCs cost advantages being reduced. The LCCs hated this idea and fought bitterly. They lost.
So, airlines have an obligation to take care of their passengers regardless of the reasons for the incident. There is no time limit to such obligation written into the regulation, nor do I think there ever will be one. Delays of more than 24/48/72 hours are not common, but they do exist.
As noted above Cranair assesses all of their passengers a €2/£2 surcharge allegedly to cover these costs. My personal view is that they are overcharging for this and are being disingenuous if not deceptive (by blaming the Regulator for this charge) However in doing so they are self-insuring for these known and legally binding costs.
What did Cryanair get out of this? Simple, free publicity from the media in another feeding frenzy.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In all sincerity I wouldn't have claimed for the ash cloud but put me down in a desert for 10 hours and blame it on an 'Act of God', is a horse of a different colour.
When a person insures some almost believe they have a right to receive back in claims each year at least what they have contributed. It is almost a feeling of entitlement to claim and to exaggerate such a claim.
With this new ruling we could create the danger where the travelling public will choose not to insure because they believe someone else will always pick up the bill if things go wrong.
Self-insurance may be one option for the airlines but some of the events the airlines will have to cover are not at all predictable and the aggregate effect of several losses, could have the same affect as a catastrophic loss particularly in the early years after formation of the fund. Imagine an airline that finds themselves under financial pressure, wouldn't they be tempted to borrow from the funds? On the other hand airlines that are doing well won't appreciate having to have capital tied up. Also I think the contributions made towards a fund for self insurance purposes may not qualify for corporation tax relief.
The purpose of insurance is to spread the risk and I think the travelling public have an obligation to insure themselves. There are new risks that have to be covered and insurers will develop new products to cover it.
In all fairness I can't see how you can't have a no limit duty of care that the airlines must now work to.
When a person insures some almost believe they have a right to receive back in claims each year at least what they have contributed. It is almost a feeling of entitlement to claim and to exaggerate such a claim.
With this new ruling we could create the danger where the travelling public will choose not to insure because they believe someone else will always pick up the bill if things go wrong.
Self-insurance may be one option for the airlines but some of the events the airlines will have to cover are not at all predictable and the aggregate effect of several losses, could have the same affect as a catastrophic loss particularly in the early years after formation of the fund. Imagine an airline that finds themselves under financial pressure, wouldn't they be tempted to borrow from the funds? On the other hand airlines that are doing well won't appreciate having to have capital tied up. Also I think the contributions made towards a fund for self insurance purposes may not qualify for corporation tax relief.
The purpose of insurance is to spread the risk and I think the travelling public have an obligation to insure themselves. There are new risks that have to be covered and insurers will develop new products to cover it.
In all fairness I can't see how you can't have a no limit duty of care that the airlines must now work to.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually a diversion, to a desert or elsewhere, is not covered by 261. As long as your flight left within 3 hours of scheduled departure time, that is.
I think the travelling public have an obligation to insure themselves.
I would not normally consider taking out insurance, simply because a substantial proportion of the insurers that I have dealt with have proven to be dishonest.
I would not normally consider taking out insurance, simply because a substantial proportion of the insurers that I have dealt with have proven to be dishonest.
So assuming we don't insure and leave it all up to the airlines to cover us what additional charges do you think airlines will pass on to their customers?
If we are being rational, airports as much as airlines, would have an appropriate duty of care.
Airports are in a far better position to organise such things so they would probably end up providing a service to airlines even when an airline was responsible for the failure.
Given that such a system could be a lot more efficient there might be no requirement to charge anybody.
If we are being rational, airports as much as airlines, would have an appropriate duty of care.
Airports are in a far better position to organise such things so they would probably end up providing a service to airlines even when an airline was responsible for the failure.
Given that such a system could be a lot more efficient there might be no requirement to charge anybody.
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
In the event of e.g. massive snow cancellations, major airports can normally conjure up camp beds, blankets etc. It’s not their responsibility – under R261 the airlines should already have bussed their stranded passengers off to nice cosy hotels, but it’s yet another measure of the madness of R261 that it assumes that hotel rooms can be found for 5000 passengers caught in a whiteout.
I think you can reasonably assume that the cost of the camp beds and blankets will be passed on to the airport’s customers – i.e. the airlines – through their charging system … and consequently into the airlines’ pricing system.
I think you can reasonably assume that the cost of the camp beds and blankets will be passed on to the airport’s customers – i.e. the airlines – through their charging system … and consequently into the airlines’ pricing system.