Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight) If you are regularly a passenger on any airline then why not post your questions here?

Tech Delay - No Excuse!

Old 11th Jun 2014, 19:08
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 629
I read a different version that leave to appeal has been granted, nevertheless I have little doubt that it will end up at the Supreme Court, as said court can be petitioned and there is a huge point of law re what constitutes `reasonable`..still to be fully decided..

IB..just because there were 3 judges doesnt mean anything. I spent decades in the law and have seen some right turkeys..
paully is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2014, 21:03
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 168
Hyperbolic extremes are irrelevant to the discussion. It'll cost a gazillion pounds to compensate an A380 full of pax for a delay just as it'll cost a thousand gazillion pounds for killing them all. The latter seldom runs the offending carrier out of business as long as they don't do it very often, and neither will paying the modest cost of an unacceptable tech delay. It's called insurance.

Regulations exist to modify citizens' and corporations' behavior toward some social good, not to punish either. Faced with paying for some level of tech delay airlines may elect to insure themselves (while making adjustments to make sure that will cost their pax a tiny amount per ticket). The result will be slightly better, safer service.

(A poster mentioned compromised safety due to employer-dictated dispatch of an unsafe aircraft. Please assure us that doesn't happen in the EU, and should it be demanded, you have a channel by which to bring it to the attention of authorities without compromising your job.)
poorjohn is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2014, 07:01
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Either the back of a sim, or wherever Crewing send me.
Posts: 965
The result will be slightly better, safer service.
No it won't, tech delays will still occur because that's the nature of anything mechanical, they break down occasionally.

It will result in higher fares, could put some airlines out of business, let's not forget that I doubt any airline has insurance at the mo, if they can ever get it due to the undoubtedly astronomic cost that an insurer would likely charge. These claims can be back dated for the last 5 years, if all passengers claimed for their delays from the past 5 years I am certain that there are some airlines that couldn't afford the bill and would have to shut up shop. What will that achieve? No compo for a start, and higher fares due to less competition!

It might also result result in longer delays once the 3 hours is breached, companies might say that the aircraft that has passed the 3 hour mark can now go to the back of the queue and that others that have some issue can take preference to attempt to get them away within the 3 hours, I know I would if it was my train set.
Johnny F@rt Pants is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2014, 07:14
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 65
Posts: 2,846
Poorjohn

Liability insurance for aircraft accidents is mandatory. You cannot fly without insurance. It is mandated by Warsaw/MC99 and is a requirement of air services agreements.

Insurance against Regulation 261 compensation claims is not available on the market. Even if it was the premiums would be so expensive that no company could afford them.

I certainly hope no pilot would ever take the cost of compensation claims into account when determining if it is safe to depart. But as the courts have decided that just about any delay, baring weather, invokes compensation I fear that this will become a factor.

And how long will it be until the courts decide that the weather is also 'not extraordinary'?
ExXB is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2014, 09:58
  #25 (permalink)  

Pilot of the Airwaves
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Close to the Med
Age: 70
Posts: 811
It might also result result in longer delays once the 3 hours is breached, companies might say that the aircraft that has passed the 3 hour mark can now go to the back of the queue and that others that have some issue can take preference to attempt to get them away within the 3 hours, I know I would if it was my train set.
I think you will find this is already the case, but will be denied.

Additionally, some airlines appear to be attempting to hide behind "extraordinary circumstances" and instead of expediting engineers to apply a fix or provide a replacement aircraft within the three hours, are not in too much of a hurry to do so. Probably on instructions from the company bean counters and/or senior management, thinking of "the bottom line".

They are now about to find out just how misguided this thinking is/was.
IB4138 is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2014, 09:59
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 579
how long will it be until the courts decide that the weather is also 'not extraordinary'?
When a judge can say the following nonsense without blushing it wont be long.

Originally Posted by Lord Justice Elias
The delay caused by the resolution of an unexpected, unforeseen and unforeseeable technical problem cannot be said to be an extraordinary circumstance.
Originally Posted by IB4138
some airlines appear to be...
The usual disclaimer when someone is just making it up as they go along.
KBPsen is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2014, 10:20
  #27 (permalink)  

Pilot of the Airwaves
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Close to the Med
Age: 70
Posts: 811
The usual disclaimer when someone is just making it up as they go along.
No, there is proof, but it is subjudacy at the moment.
IB4138 is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2014, 10:25
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 579
"subjudacy"? Is that a religious thing?
KBPsen is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2014, 12:42
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,949
I've recently voiced a gripe of a past experience in the BA thread.

Having a nice day out in Luxembourg, and due to return on BA City flyer Express to LGW (I lived and worked at LGW so I didn't want to travel to any other LON airport) the next day, BA telephoned me to tell me that my next day's flight LUX/LGW was cancelled due to aircraft technical.

Having then been an Operation Officer, Operations Controller, Crew Scheduling Manager etc. for some 20 years I laughed at the guy to the effect "So you're telling me that in BA's entire fleet they don't have a spare aircraft of any description to operate LUX/LGW tomorrow?" and he told me that was the case.

I then asked him if they had tried sub-chartering in an aircraft to operate the service, I knew he was BS'ing me so I told him to "give me 30 minutes, I'll find an aircraft for you, I've been doing it for the past 20 years" ... I can't recall his words but I realised that I wasn't going to achieve anything by arguing.

BA involuntary rerouted me on a LuxAir B737 via LHR and the aircraft was so empty it was embarrassing, "cancelled due technical" my @ss!

So they should be sued.
Phileas Fogg is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2014, 13:35
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 6,459
One of the key issues which the EC legislation was trying to address was where airlines encountered issues, which we all know happen, but then, for their own operational convenience, made a real mess out of the service recovery which was entirely in their hands.

I still object to BA, at times of LVPs at Heathrow, cancelling much of their short-haul programme, leaving long-haul untouched to meet the reduced landing slots, BUT THEN pretending the whole dislocation to the affected pax is wholly because of the weather, when the weather conditions are quite adequate for any BA aircraft to operate, but BA have taken a COMMERCIAL decision on which flights they will scrub or not. They need to make such a decision, but the rationale of sending off a string of half-empty 747s to New York, while once-a-day flights to Eastern Europe are cancelled, is a commercial/operational decision decided at the board meeting many months before, and not wholly attributable to "the weather".
WHBM is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2014, 14:44
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 629
``Having then been an Operation Officer, Operations Controller, Crew Scheduling Manager etc. for some 20 years...

And you never pulled any sort of a stunt, porky or lie in all that time?.....yer right
paully is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2014, 15:31
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 65
Posts: 2,846
Well, I don't use BA any more. I know how they handle losing slots on a bad weather day at Heathrow. They cancel some or all of the short-haul connecting flights that I want to travel on (no, they are not picking on me personally, Sh*t happens). Then they make me 'stand-by' (used to be with a full J/C fare) and hope that they will be able to accommodate me. (As if I was doing them a favour).

But the BA situation is unique. Weather delays at GVA are often because there is a lot of white stuff on the runway that the airport can't clear quick enough. I don't think LX or U2 should pay me compensation in such situations. In fact I don't want LX or U2 to think twice about operating with technical faults.
ExXB is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2014, 17:54
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
too many airlines abused the "extraordinary" excuse for too long TBH

they'll do ANYTHING to avoid paying up when treating passengers properly in the rare case of a cancellation wouldn't cost very much

of course it may not be "rare" for some outfits
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2014, 23:20
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Blighty
Posts: 4,027
There are probably 4 likely outcomes from this ruling:
1 - Airlines will devote more resources to aircraft maintenance and flight reliability, both reactive and preventative
2 - Fares will go up
3 - Reliability of flights will increase, both in terms of %'age flights completed and %'age of flights with no more than a small degree
4 - Airlines will be less inclined to experiment with smaller airports where there are fewer engineering resources in case things go wrong

Aircraft reliability costs money. Nobody wants to pay for it, but when aircraft go tech, airlines just point to the contract saying "we will get you there at some time of our choosing or refund you your money" and passengers end up screwed. Happened to me earlier this month.

Ultimately, it's all a big policy decision. How much of a safety net does Europe want to ensure flights are reliable and on time ? How much do people value their time to avoid lengthy flight delays ? Are we as a society prepared to pay for the safety net of reliability and back-up, or do we prefer to have a wider variety of flights for lower fares but suffer lower reliability ?
davidjohnson6 is online now  
Old 13th Jun 2014, 15:03
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 168
Despite the 'news', all this case law seems to be ancient history, dating from 2005-2008 per Wikipedia, so the prophecies of doom and disaster can be tested by reading the archives.

Anyone thinking of starting a new airline in the EU but frightened by the thought of paying tech-related compensation to their pax will be heartened by the realization, extracted from threads like this one, that a significant majority of moms across the continent have dutifully instilled high morals in their collective brood. These life-rules include a feeling of deep empathy toward the Corporation, long-suffering at the hands of less-well-raised customers ("passengers", "SLF" or "cretins" in this case). Thus the majority will find it abhorrent to file a claim, and the financial success of the Corporation will be secure.
poorjohn is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2014, 08:45
  #36 (permalink)  

A Runyonesque Character
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 71
Posts: 1,209
Another UK case - Dawson v Thomson Airways - has established a 6-year limitation period for claims, so if bith judgements are upheld by the Court of Appeal (assuming Jet2 and Thomson appeal), you will be able to claim for any 3-hour tech delay suffered in the last six years.
The SSK is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2014, 08:52
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 65
Posts: 2,846
Well, you can claim ... The Jet2 judgement didn't say that all tech delays were subject to R261, just the one that occurred on that flight. While the criteria has obviously tightened each will have to be considered on its own merits. I can't think of any airline that will just roll over and pay all claims, including claims previously denied, that occurred up to six years ago.

Bird strikes are technical in nature, for example, but still considered extraordinary circumstances.
ExXB is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2014, 06:50
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EGGW
Posts: 2,040
The SSK

It means the flood gates get opened for Thomson, most airlines have already been paying out on claims using the 6 year rule.
Mr @ Spotty M is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.