Chuvash

Dear all,

I'm asking you all this question on behalf of a friend of mine. She had booked a one-way award ticket ETZ-PUF via LYS on august 16. However the incoming plane was delayed in NCE, such that she could not make her same-day connexion to PUF in LYS. When she called the FB line, she was told the next LYS-PUF flight would be in the afternoon the following day.

Since she had to work the that day, that was not an acceptable option. The operator then canceled her ticket, refunded her miles and offered rerouting with a direct flight from CDG the next morning.

As a result, she had to buy SCNF tickets to CDG and book a hotel for the night. She maid a claim with Hop and was told that those expanses do not qualfy for a refund by the airline since she chose to fly from Paris

Now here's my question, I understand that if she had told the operator "cancel the tickets and book new ones" she wouldn't be entilted to compensation since she would have chosen the refund option. However in this case the FB operator offered to reroute her.

In your experience in dealing with award tickets rerouting, etc. can she claim anything based on the fact that the operator did not mention rerouting would void her rights for compensation?

Also since the flight was both coded and operated by A5 does it qualify for the usual 350euros compensation for delayed/canceled flight, or are there specific T&C for A5?

warakorn

Who has actually operated the fligt ETZ-LYS?

A5?

It does not matter what A5 states in their T&C.
The rights of EC261/2004 cannot be limited by T&C.

I would claim EUR 250 in EC261/2004 compensation at A5.

In addition I would also claim the train ticket and hotel price.

olivedel

OT: Is FlyerTalk becoming a lawyer's office?

Back to the topic, just check if the new tickets are INVOL rerouting. I do not believe that this case qualify for any kind of compensation, not even the expenses as the alternative arrangement was not made by the airline.

People : you need to speak and ask upfront. If you are not happy, ask again! But you cannot complain that making your own business and get reimbursed and get compensation.
Sorry for the rant, but I see too many posters believe that airlines (AF, KL or others) are cash machines.

NickB

No it is no more a lawyer's office than this Board is the meeting room of the Air France First Class Admiration Society. We all have different uses for FT. Some use it to was lyrical about the wonderful meal they had in the CDG first class lounge. Others use it to get advice on whether they are entitled to compensation when an airline has failed to deliver the service they promised. And some might use it for a combination of these. These are equally legitimate uses of FT.

There may or may not be Reg 261/2004 (this is debatable) but there could also be Montreal Convention liability for delay in transportation. However, this is more complicated and goes beyond what can reasonably be advised on this board. This was may be for the lawyer's office .

Yes you can when the airline does not offer what they are supposed to do. Not saying that they did not do it here but I find the suggestion that we should accept what the airline agents tell us and never vindicate one's rights when it does not get sorted on the spot as rather problematic.

It is not about believing that airlines are cash machines. It is about believing that airlines should comply with their obligations and take responsibility when they do not provide the service that they received payment for.

olivedel

I disagree totally with the wording you are using. Most of these post do not try to get compensation because people had a real issue, but just because people believe to be entitled to get money. We can provide advice in all fairness but it is their responsibility to do so.
I find, recently, that we had more posts about 261/2004 than about quality of service or the FF program that, to my opinion, belong more to FT if we just look at how this forum is named.

Fair enough

So, basically, if my flight is cancelled, you believe that I should book myself a one-way ticket on another airline, pay for my accomodation (without knowing airlines policies about accomodation level for example) and then get reimbursed without further discussion? This is completely irrealistic.

Agreed about the responsibility but is it necessary, everytime, to talk about the regulation? Just complaining to Customer Service is often enough to get compensated at the same level, without even mentionning that regulation. It also allows the airline to provide alternative compensation for customer who want it (a voucher instead of cash, or additional miles for example).

brunos

I am not sure I understand the details of the episode.
There are two daily connections ETZ-PUF, both through LYS. Maybe, only the afternoon one operated in that period, meaning that the next option was the next afternoon.
Instead, FB recredited the miles fully and offered a free ticket CDG-PUF, if I understand correcly. The OP accepted the deal. Basically the OP got a free CDG-PUF ticket and had to pay train ticket Metz-Paris.

Then the OP wonders if she can get reimbursed for the train ticket to CDG and the hotel night in CDG, plus a 350 compensation.

As NickB says, this is debatable. If A5 does not willingly wants to do more than what the OP already accepted, it seems to me a hard case to file. Yes, the OP arrived late in PUF, but the OP accepted a full refund of the original ticket plus a free CDG-PUF as commercial gesture.
If the OP had been taking the next-day flight, she would have been entitled to care (hotel night in Metz) and EC 261 compensation for the delay. But in the actual scenario, I doubt.

NickB

You may consider that an airline cancelling a flight and not offering rerouting until the following day is "not a real issue". I suspect that most people who are stranded in this way would consider this "a real issue".

Of course it is and it is not unreasonable to come here to look for advice from fellow passengers.

Well, as you say, this is your opinion. Others will have different view and there certainly is nothing, either in the name of the boards or in the way FT defines its remit, to suggest that posts regarding passenger rights are outside the scope of the forum. FT is about travel (primarily air travel) and traveler information; posts enquiring about Reg 261/2004 are concerned with informing air passengers and this is precisely what FT is about.

This is not what I said (nor is this the OP's situation incidentally). But if an airline fails to fulfil its obligation to reroute by not offering an adequate rerouting or delays the carriage of a passenger and causes him/her a damage for which the airline is responsible under the Montreal Convention, it may well be that the airline ends up liable for paying the accommodation and rerouting costs that the passenger had to book themselves as a result. This will not always be the case but there will be cases where it is the only solution.

As to the latter, experience suggests that this is plainly not the case: airlines routinely fail to comply with their legal obligations and offer less than is legally required. Is it your experience that airlines spontaneously offer 75% of the price of the ticket when they downgrade someone on long-haul? IME, it is not. And, no: the Reg does not provide for compensation in vouchers, or miles, etc... (except in cases of voluntary offloading). Naturally, nobody forces an individual to insist on the strict terms of the Reg if they are happier with something else but that is not something that is provided for in the Reg.
As to the reg being mentioned "too often", it seems to me that it is a very good thing that passengers are becoming more aware of their rights and entitlements. Airlines have too often relied on passengers not being aware of their rights to offer them less than they are entitled to. Even when someone is willing to accept something else from CR than Reg 261/2004 entitlement, it is sensible to know what you are entitled to in order to evaluate the reasonableness of what is offered to you.

Ultimately, many people have different expectations of what they come to FT for. Perhaps we can cohabit in a civil manner and be tolerant of others perspectives rather than wanting to impose our personal vision of what FT should be about. The title of the thread quite explicitly referred to Reg 261/2004. This made it extremely easy for those who are not interested in this topic to ignore the thread and move to something else which interests them more.

olivedel

I do not believe I did express my opinion in a non-civil manner. Not at all. I just expressed my concern (but apparently, I cannot do that either) about threads on compensation (not this one specifically) that could lead to trying to "abuse" the compensation system.

To be back on the OP's case, I think, in that case, that you cannot just say "OK" with the rebooking solution, then cancel a ticket and rebook one, get you own accomodation and then ask for compensation. If you want compensation, you need the airline to handle the solution.
Even if the case is valid within the Reg 261/2004, it would require several mails and maybe a lawyer to be defended IMHO.

NickB

You certainly did not and I did not say that you did. But I can see that you might have read my post as implying it so I apologise for my infelicitous phrasing.
Of course, you can express what you want. But when you criticise others for writing on a particular topic that you do not like (even though it is squarely within the FT remit), it is a bit rich to then expect to be immune from criticism. As the saying goes, people who live in glasshouses ...

This is not what the OP did. The OP was first offered an unsuitable rerouting solution. The OP was then offered another solution but was told that this would involve refunding the original ticket and booking a new one as this was a departure from CDG rather than ETZ. This is a debatable interpretation of the Reg, in particular in light of Art 8(3) which requires the airline to pay for transport between original airport and alternate airport. Admittedly, Art 8(3) speaks of alternate airport on arrival and talks of alternative airports serving the region. Still, it is not an unreasonable analogy and I would not be surprised to see the CJEU interpreting it as applying on departure as well and possibly between airports such as ETZ and CDG. Alternatively, it is also arguable that a train+plane combo is also a suitable rerouting within the meaning of Art 8(1)(b) (all the more so as Lorraine-TGV is a TGV-air destination).

Similarly, Article 9(1)(b) of the Reg stipulates that the airline is responsible for providing hotel accommodation where "a stay additional to that intended by the passenger becomes necessary." Arguably, one could see the forced overnight in Paris as falling within the scope of that Article although again this is not squarely covered by the wording if interpreted narrowly.

AIUI, this is what the OP did and the airline offered a reroute, albeit through refunding and rebooking afresh and the OP wants to argue that this process falls short of Reg 261/2004 for the reasons above.

Yes, it is not a straightforward, open-and-shut-book case but is this not precisely why the OP felt the need to post on FT? I would have thought that it is eminently sensible to post on FT to see if anybody else had experienced a similar issue, how they went about it and what the outcome was. It is, after all, a frequent traveler board and the place where you are most likely to come across fellow posters with relevant experience.

brunos

I do agree that FT is the sensible place to post such a query. Even if regulars on FT might be quite bored with the compensation posts, this one is a fairly "original" one.
The OP asks for practical advice. The delayed flight was operated by A5 (Airliner of HOP) and my suggestion is to keep insisting with A5 (not FB).
But I doubt that they will go beyond their goodwill gesture of full refund and giving a free AF ticket CDG-PUF.

IceTrojan

I'm actually surprised that there isn't an "AF EC261 Master Thread" or something to be a receptacle for all such topics (unless I'm blind and don't see it). Perhaps one should be started?

Chuvash

Thank you all for your replies.

Just a few things to clarify the situation, she did not get a free CDG-PUF but was instead charged 15K miles per ticket. Anyway, after several emails she finally received 250EUR per ticket in compliance with EC261. She has yet to tell me whether she had her other expenses reimbursed.

In terms of the usefulness of this situation for fellow FTers it means that in case of rerouting with a different airport of origin, you should be careful and make sure you get a verbal/written approval/denial from the AF desk to know whether the induced expenses will be reimbursed.

I second the idea of a dedicated EC261 master-thread to save up some space on the forum.

Finally, I agree that Airlines are not cash machines but they're not your "buddies" either. I love having a good relationship with airlines and not abusing the fine prints, but it is a business relationship: if I pay for something and I don't get it then I expect a compensation.