Christmas Chaos LGW
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Christmas Chaos LGW
GIP, the owner of LGW, is a multinational infrastructure fund whose investors are themselves large funds. As they are effectively looking for equity return I doubt they care much about a blip like this which has a minimal effect on revenue over a financial year. Actually, as a regulated business the ' profitability ' of the airport in cash terms is dictated by the regulatory asset base RAB on which the owner/ operator is allowed to earn a fixed return. If LGW is required to invest more capital in flood defence etc this will increase the RAB which will in turn justify raising prices. Whichever way this pans out - we'll pay for this up muck!
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Northern Territory Australia
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LGW Power Outage.
I wonder how often such an event happens.
Annually? very couple of years? Once in a lifetime?
Events happen. They usually occur at inconvenient times.
You can plan for events - risk management. But risk management is based on various levels of probability. The Airport Authority reacted but as usual not quickly enough for the SLF whose character changes the moment they enter an airport terminal.
An example perhaps of risk management improperly enacted is what happened in St Lucia recently with a river abutting the airport breaking it's banks. It's not rare so there is a greater risk. I suspect that the authorities there will now act with greater purpose to prevent what could have been a catastrophic accident with multiple loss of life.
Annually? very couple of years? Once in a lifetime?
Events happen. They usually occur at inconvenient times.
You can plan for events - risk management. But risk management is based on various levels of probability. The Airport Authority reacted but as usual not quickly enough for the SLF whose character changes the moment they enter an airport terminal.
An example perhaps of risk management improperly enacted is what happened in St Lucia recently with a river abutting the airport breaking it's banks. It's not rare so there is a greater risk. I suspect that the authorities there will now act with greater purpose to prevent what could have been a catastrophic accident with multiple loss of life.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Soemthing needs to be done about communications tho' - generally the "advice" is to turn up at the airport and you do becasue you can't get compensation unless you are there
You can never get hold of anyone to talk to and the websites are never updated with useful information
it would be far far better if they just said "Anyone on BA1234 to Rome today - forget it - you will get compensation but stay away"
You can never get hold of anyone to talk to and the websites are never updated with useful information
it would be far far better if they just said "Anyone on BA1234 to Rome today - forget it - you will get compensation but stay away"
Paxing All Over The World
Good idea H Harry. As electronic pax processing expands, we must hope they see the sense of this. (breath not being held)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's not forget that compensation is not applicable in all cases - the chaos at LGW was not caused by the airlines.
What passengers want is accurate and timely information so they can make informed decisions. Additionally more pro-active 'tuning' of the schedules needs to become the priority. A two hour delay at the start of the day likely means that some aircraft will not be able to complete all flights that day without running into curfews and crew timing issues. For example, if they pruned (pun intended) the aircraft's final rotation early in the day rather than 'hope' that things will improve, everyone would be much better off.
What passengers want is accurate and timely information so they can make informed decisions. Additionally more pro-active 'tuning' of the schedules needs to become the priority. A two hour delay at the start of the day likely means that some aircraft will not be able to complete all flights that day without running into curfews and crew timing issues. For example, if they pruned (pun intended) the aircraft's final rotation early in the day rather than 'hope' that things will improve, everyone would be much better off.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
talking to a neighbour he thought that companies are very scared of real-time communication on this sort of thing
their Legal departments want o vet everything in case they lay themselves open to being sued.........
their Legal departments want o vet everything in case they lay themselves open to being sued.........
Paxing All Over The World
Good point H.Harry.
Those are things that can be put on a balance sheet. What cannot be put on is the customer goodwill of rescuing them from an unpleasant situation.
It may well be that the customer is not entitled to compensation in a particular case but sometimes it may be the better result. If the carrier makes it clear that they do not have to pay or reroute or accomodate them - but they DO, then that is worth shouting about. Such as EZY did on Xmas day.
Unfortunately, many companies (right across the commercial spectrum) see it in their long term interest to pay lawyers more than they would have paid the client - in order to not pay the client. They think this hard line approach is good for business.
It may be less money and better PR to pay the client - particularly as the client will then leave them alone. The frustrated client may spend months of letters and the rest and still never use them again. I am well aware of the number of 'chancers' and 'scallys' that ask for compensation at every turn.
Even if they just get a voucher against their next ticket - not hard cash - it's a lot better. But (most) modern companies think so short term that they do not consider this.
Those are things that can be put on a balance sheet. What cannot be put on is the customer goodwill of rescuing them from an unpleasant situation.
It may well be that the customer is not entitled to compensation in a particular case but sometimes it may be the better result. If the carrier makes it clear that they do not have to pay or reroute or accomodate them - but they DO, then that is worth shouting about. Such as EZY did on Xmas day.
Unfortunately, many companies (right across the commercial spectrum) see it in their long term interest to pay lawyers more than they would have paid the client - in order to not pay the client. They think this hard line approach is good for business.
It may be less money and better PR to pay the client - particularly as the client will then leave them alone. The frustrated client may spend months of letters and the rest and still never use them again. I am well aware of the number of 'chancers' and 'scallys' that ask for compensation at every turn.
Even if they just get a voucher against their next ticket - not hard cash - it's a lot better. But (most) modern companies think so short term that they do not consider this.
