Passengers win right to compensation when flights cancelled for technical faults
 

Think I'll go and be a lawyer :ok:

.....and fares will therefore rise accordingly. Why can't pax accept s**t happens?

Because all too often 'tec' is used as an excuse not to fly a lightly loaded sector (voice of embittered experience)!!!!

should it concern me?
 

as a pax should i be concened that this may "incentivise" airlines to take more risks in order to get a plane in the air?

or even deliberately falsify an "exceptional circumstance" in order not to pay up?

...or maybe spend money on maintenance...

I think I'll use this new development in my 30th email to KLM ! They are still trying to tell me that a tech fault that happened the night before falls under "force majeure"...more like Force Manure!

So will the airlines now be able to claim compensation from the aircraft maker or manufacturer of the failed component?. Hmm, thought not.

Those who make such rulings normally take the view that commercial organisations are quite capable of looking after themselves and do not require statutory compensation.

They do have recourse to the courts.

How are they to define whether something was within an airlines control? surely if an airline has maintained an aircraft to the highest levels they have done everything within their control to keep the aircraft airworthy.

Surely everything else is out of their control? not just unlawful interference?

It's probably because airlines in general, treat their pax with utter contempt once they have booked & tell them any old crap. They assume all their passengers are thick & can be told anything, that's if they even bother at all.

250 Euros for each passenger delayed by a cancelled flight even if it's down to an engine fault or perhaps a cracked windshield? Both of which happen from time to time and are "inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier" Both can take time to diagnose/repair/replace.

Short of having a second fleet of spare aircraft, there are always going to be issues arising from airline operations. Unlike a rail operator who can run services with faulty rolling stock (eg flat wheels, broken A/C, broken PA) an airline operator is both morally and legally obliged to provide an aircraft which is servicable to a far higher level eg faulty PA can be a no-go item and may not show itself until 5 minutes before boarding.

Fair enough companies who regularly take the piss deserve it, but those who try and provide a good service are going to get stung by this. Say good bye to the 50 Euro ticket

I suggest these things would not be needed if airlines treated their passengers with more respect. If everyone believed the other was doing their best, then people might not complain as much.

Personally after a few problems with Air Canada, I have not traveled with them in over 7 years, and never will again. I have instead taken Cathey via HK to go Seoul - Vancouver instead. Yes it is a few hours longer but it is not Air Canada. To be honest, from what I have heard from my American co-workers US airlines are not much better.

Simmilarily, flying to Europe, I take Emerates, Cathey, or Singapore for the same reasons - less stress and more respect. That does not mean troubles dont happen, but it does mean that fewer troubles happen and when they do, I get treated well.

For me, I think it is the feeling if being nickled and dimed to death by many North Amerian and some European airlines that leads peaple to say that if the airlines are going to do that to them then '**** them' I'll do it back the first chance I get.

Respect goes both ways. More respect from airlines might make more understanding from passangers.

TME

The joys and delights of a certain LCC in the UK.

When a certain LCC was new I was booked ABZ-LTN for a weekend off. After a 56 hour delay they laid on a flight which would have meant me getting on the return flight. No refund and the response of "Well we did provide a flight for you, so no refund." stuck deep in my throat. I fly corporate charter, if we let them down we have to provide an alternative, why shouldn't others including Big Airways who left me sleeping on a floor in a US airport this year and then down graded me from business to economy (World Traveller) in their parlance without any form of recompense.

VH

What a great way to pressurize airlines to fly aircraft of doubtful servicability.:ugh:

The "spare fleet for backup" argument is totally nebulous hogwash.

Yes, a major carrier MAY need to dot the odd plane around, in strategic spots, say 1 hour's flightradius all round to other airports they fly into...EG in the UK a "spare" could be at LHR and only the top -end of scotland would be more than an hour away,-everywhere else in the UK covered with ONE spare plane!...all other forms of Public Transport seem to manage the logistics of their operation.

Another suggestion, is to make rhe backup" fleet" more numerous smaller aircraft, then, as Draughtsman 99 stated, a lightly -loaded sector would STILL be viable to complete as the contract requires, without lying to pax and giving them the mushroom treatment.

Reserves would also take the pressure off engineering, ensuring a properly executed PERMANENT repair , as opposed to a "keep it going" one........and before anyone gets all indignant.....we know it happens!


I believe that Gloag and Souter made their multi-millions out of Stagecoach, because they KNEW the costings and therefore subsidies, were based on a single-decker bus.....in spite of the fact that the pax numbers wouldn't fill a minibus.......so, privatisation, buy minibuses, get subs based on big PSV's trouser the difference.

The airline industry could learn a trick or two there.
If I understand correctly, a scheduled flight HAS to take place even if there's only 1 pax......if so, "anything" legal could be sub-contract chartered to comply. or does no-one except O'Leary operate in the 21s't century's commercial reality?

*flame-suit on*

Airlines could seek exemption from this rule if they guaranteed to have a minimum % deferred items both on individual aircraft and fleet-wide at any time, coupled with being below a minimum % cancellations declared due to maintenance, perhaps? (Subject to submission of their aircraft and maintenance records to an authorised supervisory agency).

At present in the opinion of the Court the consumer is not protected from an airline spinning them a line when they just don't want to operate the sector, but I think the ECJ ruling can be replaced with something fairer if the airlines, realising the cost implications of this ruling, come forward with a reasonable, enforceable compromise. After all, airlines seem to find ways to operate in a timely manner from airports with slot restrictions - to the point of flying empty to keep the slot!

It is much more complicated matter if you go into details.
Tech problems are always having the place. However to what extend the operator is prepared to deal with them? Many factors. One airline (especially very small) may opt for having just a small part of a no-go items in stock, while other may go much further and have extensive stock of spares. Which one is more likely to solve the tech problem?
One airline could have a contracted guy who is only good to top up the oil, other could have their own full-scale B1 & B2 guys at station. Again, which one is more likely to solve the tech problem quicker?
Some airlines having considerably more engine problems and even IFSDs than others, due to the different approach to preventive maintenance etc.
Airline with 3 aircraft cannot afford to have one spare aircraft. Airline with 50-100 fleet can. Blah-blah-blah.

And what type of spare plane should that be? BA has spare planes, but it's usually an A320 which isn't much use if a 757 goes tech. And you won't get very far from LHR in an hour. Maybe Newcastle.

....to a far lower level of technical scrutiny and regulation.

"Keep it going" is the essence of all aircraft operation. It's what the MEL is for. Repairing everything as and when it fails is simply impractical, nor can any airline afford to have sufficient reserve aircraft to cover all the defects which occur on a daily basis.


What are these subsidies in the airline industry you allude to?

My air law is rusty but unless this is part of the new EU regs no such rule exists.

If pax knew what goes on the background to keep aircraft serviceable (in most airlines), they might have a better understanding of the complexities involved and the dedication of the staff.

But, hell, it's just a flying bus to them, isn't it.