Better Compensation £££££

[Rinrada]

Better compensation for delays and bumping

Flight delays and being bumped off a full plane should become less frequent, if new regulations introduced by the European Commission have their desired effect.

The new regulations, which came into force on 17 February, will entitle passengers to compensation from their airline if they face long delays, flight cancellation or are denied boarding.

They apply to flights operated by European airlines from or to a European airport and to any flight departing from the European Union.

Dont know yet if this applies to Thai-EVA-C.P etc ...will ask...

The EC says that in 2002, a quarter of a million passengers were bumped off a flight.

The new rules will mean bumped passengers will receive compensation of €250 for flights of less than 1500 km, €400 for flights of between 1500 and 3500 km and €600 for flights of more than 3500 km.

In the event of unavoidable cancellation, passengers will receive these same amounts, assistance (meals, accommodation if the alternative flight proposed is the following day) and the possibility of a refund or of rebooking to the final destination.

For long delays, the airline has to offer meals- , refreshments , hotel accommodation if necessary, and means of communication . If the delay exceeds five hours, it has to propose refunding the ticket (with, if necessary, a free flight to your point of departure)............YES_YES_YES

[daveb1]

This should cover every flight to thailand from the UK or other EU Countries so will cover Thai, EVA and the rest!!!!!

Great news all round

[Rinrada]

In the event of unavoidable cancellation

Weather forcast for next week in the London area is SNOW with expected temps.down to minus -10

Time for a spare set of Jim Jams

[Rinrada]

Some info for our Americian Buddies....going to LOS

How to Complain About Your Airline Service

Featuring AirSafe.com's Online Complaint Form

Flying as an airline passenger is an often memorable experience, but there are times where the experience is memorable for all the wrong reasons: mechanical problems, poor service, bad food, lost luggage, or any of a number of other problems. When problems arise in your travels, you may be able to deal with those problems by complaining to the airline or to one of the authorities that oversee air transportation.

Know the Rules

When you purchase a ticket, you and the airline have entered into a contract that covers many different situations that you may face during a flight.

Each airline has a specific set of guidelines that are used for situations such as flight delays, overbookings, and lost or damaged luggage.

Complaining Basics

When you want to complain about the service you receive during your flight, you should give the airline a chance to resolve it.

Most airlines have customer service representatives who can take care of many problems on the spot.

more......

http://www.airsafe.com/complain/complain.htm

and a complaint form....

http://www.airsafe.com/sendit.htm

with thanks from those nice people at AIRSAFE

http://www.airsafe.com/

[Serendipitist]

But, but but despite all the 's is it really such great news?

The money has to come from somewhere... The airlines aren't so stupid as to watch a new hole develop in their revenues without patching it. And that should mean another excuse for concerted ticket price rises for all of us...

Hope not!

[Rinrada]

This is the latest from Mick at Ryanair.

Remember when he was running a back street car rental business in Dublin and now look at him

Ryanair expands fleet with $4bn Boeing deal

By Michael Harrison, Business Editor.25 February 2005

Ryanair, the low-cost Irish carrier, underlined its determination to become Europe's biggest airline yesterday by placing orders for a further 70 Boeing 737-800 jets with a list price of more than $4bn (£2bn).

The latest deal with Boeing will take the Ryanair fleet to 225 aircraft by 2012 by which time it expects to be flying about 70 million passengers a year - double the number it expects to carry this year.

The increase in the fleet will create an extra 2,500 jobs at Ryanair, taking the workforce to 5,500. Half the new jobs will be at its existing 12 bases around Europe while the other half will be located at the 10 new bases the airline plans to open over the next seven years.

Michael O'Leary, Ryanair's chief executive, refused to disclose the discount the airline had received from Boeing but the rule of thumb on such large orders is a saving on list price of up to 40 per cent. Mr O'Leary did, however, disclose that the price of the new aircraft is less than Ryanair agreed to pay when it announced its original order for 155 Boeing 737-800s three years ago and that the price reduction would apply retrospectively to the 80 or so aircraft still to be delivered under that contract. Most of the new aircraft will be bought outright rather than leased.

The Ryanair boss also stood by his forecast of a "bloodbath" across the airline market, although its fares had held up better than expected. "There will be more casualties.

Read CHEAPER FARES

I don't think we overhyped it. It is still pretty crap out there," he said.

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/new...sp?story=614566

[konangrit]

I see the logic that this will lead to increased prices, but the airline industry is so competetive that airlines which have a bad record for delays and bumping people are going to incur higher costs than airlines which have a good record. I can't see how they could increase their prices to higher than other airlines which have better puntuality.

This is going to cost a fortune for airlines with strong unions that are prone to striking such as Air France. Either they give into the unions demands and pay increased wage costs, or they face a strike which would lead to huge compensation payouts to affected passengers.

It's for this reason that I never fly with Air France, strking seems like a national past-time to the French.

[Rinrada]

Was it or Was it NOT ? (abridged)...February 25, 2005

Flying faulty jumbo across Atlantic saves BA £100,000..............By Ben Webster

Turning back after engine failure would have left airline liable to pay for delays under new rules on compensation

A B.A. jumbo jet carrying 351 passengers was forced to make an emergency landing after an 11-hour transatlantic flight with a failed engine.

The fault occurred on take-off from Los Angeles but continued on three engines for 5,000 miles to Britain.

The incident happened three days after a European regulation came into force requiring airlines to compensate passengers for long delays or cancellations. Under the new rules, if the pilot had returned to Los Angeles, BA would have been facing a compensation bill of more than £100,000.

The regulation requires airlines to refund passengers the full cost of their tickets as well as flying them home if a delay lasts longer than five hours.

Passengers must also be put up in hotels if the delay continues overnight.

The BA -the airline admitted that the delay would have been well over five hours if it had returned to Los Angeles.

BA initially claimed that the engine had failed an hour into the flight.

But the airline admitted yesterday that the problem had occurred a few seconds after take-off when the Boeing 747 was only 100ft above the ground.

The Boeing 747 was unable to climb to its cruising altitude of 36,000ft and had to cross the Atlantic at 29,000ft, where the engines perform less efficiently and the tailwinds are less favourable.

The pilot realised as he flew over the Atlantic that he was running out of fuel and would not make it to Heathrow.

He requested an emergency landing at Manchester and was met by four fire engines and thirty firefighters on the runway.

An aviation security specialist on board the flight with his wife and three daughters, said he had heard two loud bangs shortly after take-off. “The pilot came on to say we had lost an engine and he was negotiating about whether or not we should land back at Los Angeles.

“A few minutes later, I was amazed to see from the map on the TV screen that we were flying eastwards towards Britain.

I would be disgusted if the issue of compensation had any bearing on the decision.”

BA said financial concerns had played no part in the decision that had been “what was best for passengers”.

“The plane is as safe on three engines as on four and it can fly on two. It was really a customer service issue, not a safety issue. .”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1499342,00.html

[Rinrada]

Have you been BUMPED -Delayed or Dumped...

Latest Update on Compensation legislation from European Court of Justice

The European Airline Charabang Companies mafia are moaning about having to pay compensation to those nasty passengers who think that they have a complaint against them for late or cancelled flights etc.

(how dare they...after all they only represent our bread and butter )

..so with all that power behind them...jumbo jets and spitfires they went to court

...and......

Airlines lose compensation battle

From Rory Watson in Brussels-with thanks)

EUROPE’S airlines have lost a crucial battle in their campaign to annul legislation forcing them to compensate passengers for late or cancelled flights.

In a preliminary judgment, a leading member of the European Court of Justice stated that the EU’s rules, which came into force in February, were legally valid.

He also rejected claims that the fixed scale of compensation discriminated against no-frills airlines, even though the payments involved are far higher than the cost of the original tickets.

Leendert Geelhoed, the court advocate-general handling the case, concluded that “the obligations imposed on the air carriers are a suitable and proportionate means of reducing the trouble and inconvenience to passengers resulting from delays or cancellations.”

His opinion, which will guide the Luxembourg-based judges when they deliver their final ruling later this year, was a major setback for the International Air Transport Association and the European Low Fares Airline Association (ELFAA), which had brought the legal action.

Jan Skeels, the ELFAA’s secretary-general admitted disappointment at the advocate general’s analysis.

Jim Callaghan, Ryanair’s regulatory affairs manager, yesterday criticised the imbalance between compensation and tickets. “We have had a claim for €400 (£270) against a €46 fare and one for €1,980 from a family of five that had paid €168,” he said. “It is absurd.”

However, Simon Evans, the chief executive of the Air Transport Users Council, welcomed the latest legal developments and said they helped to clarify passenger compensation.

“If the judges agree with the advocate-general when they deliver their verdict, then we will have to look at low-cost airlines who say they will not comply with the measures and ask them to change their position,” he said.

The European legislation sets out passengers’ rights if they are denied boarding or their flight is delayed or cancelled.

This can involve rerouting to their final destination, reimbursement of their ticket, care such as meals and accommodation, and compensation.

Compensation depends on the length of the journey: €250 for flights under 1,500 kilometres; €400 for those between 1,500 and 3,500 km; and €600 for all other distances.

IATA, which represents 270 airlines that collectively carry 98 per cent of scheduled air passengers, and the ELFAA, which represents ten budget airlines, challenged the legislation in the High Court in London.

Given the complexity of the issues, the case was handed over to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

The plaintiffs had argued that the EU legislation ran counter to the Montreal Convention, which sets out international rules on the liability of air carriers for any delays. Mr Geelhoed insisted the two were complementary since the convention regulates claims for damages that can be brought before a court, while the EU legislation was designed to help stranded passengers whether there was fault or not on the part of the airlines.

The advocate-general also rejected claims that the compensation measures discriminated between airlines and other forms of travel and between low-cost airlines and premium-fare carriers. Airline companies, he argued, were free to choose their own business model and to set their own prices.

If they selected a low-fares approach, that should not allow them to be privileged under the law, he added.

Traditionally the Luxembourg judges follow the advocate-general’s opinion. If, as expected, they do on this occasion, it will reinforce the legislation, but is not expected to lead a rash of new claims.

Mr Evans said: “The measures are already in place and are being applied. Most airlines are not trying to duck their responsibility to look after their passengers and provide the necessary assistance.”

Between April and the end of August, the ATUC received 2,870 complaints.

Note this only applies to EU bases airlines primarily however also covers departures of foreign carries departing from anywhere in EU....

US has similar /different models of comp.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,...1771763,00.html

[chico]

Better compensation for delays and bumping

Flight delays and being bumped off a full plane should become less frequent, if new regulations introduced by the European Commission have their desired effect.

The new regulations, which came into force on 17 February, will entitle passengers to compensation from their airline if they face long delays, flight cancellation or are denied boarding.

They apply to flights operated by European airlines from or to a European airport and to any flight departing from the European Union.

Dont know yet if this applies to Thai-EVA-C.P etc ...will ask...  

The EC says that in 2002, a quarter of a million passengers were bumped off a flight.

The new rules will mean bumped passengers will receive compensation of €250 for flights of less than 1500 km, €400 for flights of between 1500 and 3500 km and €600 for flights of more than 3500 km.

In the event of unavoidable cancellation, passengers will receive these same amounts, assistance (meals, accommodation if the alternative flight proposed is the following day) and the possibility of a refund or of rebooking to the final destination.

For long delays, the airline has to offer meals- , refreshments , hotel accommodation if necessary, and means of communication . If the delay exceeds five hours, it has to propose refunding the ticket (with, if necessary, a free flight to your point of departure)............YES_YES_YES

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And I do believe in Santa Claus and the easter bunny too.......YES_YES_YES

[Ricardo]

In the event of unavoidable cancellation

Weather forcast for next week in the London area is SNOW with expected temps.down to minus -10

Time for a spare set of Jim Jams

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, right , snow in September

I didn't realise we were THAT close to 1st April ?

But thanks for the useful info on compensation.

[Rinrada]

and it aint the 1st of April....

latest update on the BIG AIRLINES trying to circumvent the LAW....

The Times February 02, 2006

How passenger beat airline over cancelled flight

By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent

AN AIRLINE passenger has won £840 in compensation for a cancelled flight in a landmark judgment that could benefit thousands of travellers who endure long delays.

David H, an economist and former Oxford don, has become the first person to win a case against an airline based on a new European regulation on passenger rights.

Airlines had previously resisted claims through loopholes in the law, but Mr H. sued Thomas Cook Airlines in the small claims court and convinced the judge that the company had interpreted the regulation unfairly.

He and his son arrived at Stansted airport on August 5 last year to find that their flight to Vancouver had been cancelled.

The 300 passengers were told that they would be sent on coaches to Manchester to catch another flight the next day. Mr H. had already accepted a change of airport from Gatwick, south of London, to Stansted, north of London. He refused to board the coach and booked flights with another airline instead.

The EU regulation, which came into force last February, requires airlines to pay €600 (£420) in compensation to each passenger, as well as a full refund for cancelling a long-haul flight.

For short flights, the compensation is €250.

But the regulation contains a clause which states that airlines do not have to pay if the cancellation was caused by “extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken”.

It says those circumstances may include “unexpected flight safety shortcomings”.

Thomas Cook tried initially to claim that Mr H’s flight had merely been delayed, not cancelled. During delays, passengers are entitled to meals and hotel accommodation, but not to compensation.

The airline used the same flight number for the replacement flight 24 hours later from Manchester; a frequent practice. But Alan Jenkins, the district judge at Oxford County Court, said: “The fact that the same flight number was used has no bearing on the issue at all. The time differential of 24 hours is more indicative of cancellation than of delay.”

Thomas Cook also tried to claim that it was not liable because there had been a fault with an engine which it could not have foreseen.

The company said that it did not keep a back-up aircraft “because the cost would be prohibitive”.

A Thomas Cook engineer admitted in court, however, that the fault had not been on the aircraft due to be used for Mr Hs flight but on another aircraft.

Airlines often shuffle their aircraft when one breaks down, cancelling the flight that will cause the least disruption to their schedule.

Mr Jenkins said: “It is not sufficient for the defendant to escape liability by pointing to some technical defect somewhere or other in its fleet.”

Mr H, who represented himself against a Thomas Cook legal team led by a barrister, said:

“This case demonstrates that you can take on the airlines and win.

“My advice to passengers is to never go to the airport without a copy of the regulation in your back pocket.”

The Air Transport Users Council said that the judgment could help many other cases by helping to define several grey areas in the regulation.

James Fremantle, the spokesman for the council, said:

“This is good news for passengers and will encourage them to use the regulation to obtain justice.”

Complaints to the council have tripled since the regulation was introduced, with more than 6,000 received in the past 12 months.

The council has passed on hundreds of cases to the Civil Aviation Authority after concluding that the airline concerned was in clear breach of the regulation.

But the CAA, which has the power to fine airlines £5,000 for each breach, has yet to bring any prosecutions.

The CAA is funded by the airlines and has opted to pursue what it calls “light-touch regulation”.

Thomas Cook said that it was considering whether to appeal but was concerned that, if it lost at the High Court, it could encourage more claims.