Compensation question
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Jungle or Sand!!!!!!
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Compensation question
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?
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?
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
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
From the OP's story he failed to present himself at the gate in a timely manner.
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Cambridge, UK
Age: 48
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,093
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As if by magic, here are the questions and answers.
And here is the regulation.
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
And here is the regulation.
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
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Soon to be out of the EU.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.