KLM Flying Dutchman - Denied boarding on first leg due to weather delay - compensation required?

On 21 December 2009, my girlfriend and I were flying from BRU to YVR via AMS on KLM. When we arrived at BRU to drop off our baggage (we had checked in online), the check-in desks were not yet open although there was a long queue. We were repeatedly told (by the Flight Care agents representing KLM) that the flight from BRU to AMS might be cancelled due to snow, but to keep waiting (instead of taking a train or other transportation to AMS). Eventually we were told that the flight was indeed cancelled, although a group of travelers who were connecting through to Tokyo were taken away (apparently there were other arrangements made for this group). In the end we were re-booked (incorrectly, but that's another story) for a BA flight two days later.

It has since become clear that the flight from BRU to AMS was in fact not cancelled at all, but was actually only delayed by 30 minutes. I've written a complaint letter to KLM, and have been told that the flight was only delayed (due to weather) and not cancelled, and it was due to this delay (and the expectation that we would be too late for our connection to YVR in AMS) that we were re-booked. They have offered a relatively small compensation in the form of a 200 euro flight voucher for each of us as a sign of goodwill, but I'm wondering if I should leave it at this.

First of all, there is the issue of being lied to about the flight being cancelled; secondly, there is the fact that had we been able to board our flight to AMS we still would have easily made our connection to YVR (in fact, due to the YVR connection being delayed, the layover time in AMS would have increased from an hour and a half to two hours). Finally, I'm thinking that this is a situation of denied boarding, and not just a delay: if the flight from BRU to AMS was only delayed, can KLM deny us boarding due to a worry that we won't make our connection in AMS?

I've done quite a bit of searching about EC 261/2004, but I'm not sure how this situation fits into that. Any advice on what my rights are here would be greatly appreciated!

Having said all that, I also have to say that I've always been an extremely happy customer of KLM up until this incident; up until now I've always felt that it is a great airline.

You got to your destination over two days later.

KL know they are at fault hence the offer of €200 already.

Claim for the full compensation. I wouldn't settle for less than a €900 TCV or the €600 in cash. If you don't get it, sue them in your local court (for the cash).

Thanks for your reply

Claim for the full compensation. I wouldn't settle for less than a €900 TCV or the €600 in cash. If you don't get it, sue them in your local court (for the cash).

My concern is on which basis I can/should claim; I'm thinking that they will just blindly claim weather delays and that it is therefore exempt from the 261/2004 rules. Can I confidently say that this is indeed a case of denied boarding, or do they have a good case to say that this counts as extraordinary circumstances?

Thanks for your reply



My concern is on which basis I can/should claim; I'm thinking that they will just blindly claim weather delays and that it is therefore exempt from the 261/2004 rules. Can I confidently say that this is indeed a case of denied boarding, or do they have a good case to say that this counts as extraordinary circumstances?

If the flight indeed left, albeit (only) 30 mins later then I can hardly see how they can claim weather delays for taking you to your destination 2 days later. Pursue it with them again, then you will see.

If the flight indeed left, albeit (only) 30 mins later then I can hardly see how they can claim weather delays for taking you to your destination 2 days later. Pursue it with them again, then you will see.

Since the delay made the entire PNR fall apart (the delay of the connecting flight notwithstanding, but irrelevant) they were right to keep you at the departing airport. If they had boarded you to AMS and you had missed your flight you would have complained about that. At least now you could sleep at home.

The compensation is probably because they lied to you (unbelievable) and they probably lied to you because most passengers will not accept that a 30 minute delay voids their entire PNR.

So no, no compensation.

Since the delay made the entire PNR fall apart (the delay of the connecting flight notwithstanding, but irrelevant) they were right to keep you at the departing airport. If they had boarded you to AMS and you had missed your flight you would have complained about that. At least now you could sleep at home.

The compensation is probably because they lied to you (unbelievable) and they probably lied to you because most passengers will not accept that a 30 minute delay voids their entire PNR.

So no, no compensation.

How can you reach that conclusion?!

1) For all we know, "home" could well be YVR.

2) It turns out that the OP would have made their connection in AMS in the end. KLM Ops should have known that (really, a 30 min delay should rarely result in missed connections anyway).

3) I am pretty sure there must have been another way to get the pax to YVR sooner than 2 days later. Unless alternatives were offered and rejected by the OP (e.g. more/longer transits etc), then I still believe KL is at fault here.

go to http://passagerrettigheder.dk/EUflyerrights.htm for EU passenger rights and DIY compensation claims..if your final destination with KLM was YVR then you are liable to be compensated Euro 600

No, you are not.

It is really very simple. For this leg of the PNR the starting airport was Brussels. Airlines use a Minimum Connection Time to plan PNRs. If a 30 minute delay meant that the MCT was too short that voids the entire routing. Whether or not the corresponding flight was delayed is obviously of no consequence until we discover a way to see into the future.

Given the enormous consequences of the weather on all flights in EUR and US a reroute within 48 hrs is actually quite an achievement. Some pax had to wait for over a week.

The only mistake the airline made was lying to prevent pax from trying to get on board of the feeder flight. Although even here I can imagine you misunderstood. Your PNR was cancelled due to the delay of the feeder flight. If KL had let them board they would have been liable for further delays. They made the right choice. I find the compensation you got generous and unnecessary.

No, you are not.

It is really very simple. For this leg of the PNR the starting airport was Brussels. Airlines use a Minimum Connection Time to plan PNRs. If a 30 minute delay meant that the MCT was too short that voids the entire routing. Whether or not the corresponding flight was delayed is obviously of no consequence until we discover a way to see into the future.

Given the enormous consequences of the weather on all flights in EUR and US a reroute within 48 hrs is actually quite an achievement. Some pax had to wait for over a week.

The only mistake the airline made was lying to prevent pax from trying to get on board of the feeder flight. Although even here I can imagine you misunderstood. Your PNR was cancelled due to the delay of the feeder flight. If KL had let them board they would have been liable for further delays. They made the right choice. I find the compensation you got generous and unnecessary.

OK, it seems we view things differently. I would recommend the OP to pursue this (with the European Commission authorities, if needed) and then we will all know the answer and learn something :)

OK, it seems we view things differently. I would recommend the OP to pursue this (with the European Commission authorities, if needed) and then we will all know the answer and learn something :)

That would be my suggestion too. Don't spend a fortune on it though. Use www.euclaim.com and let them sort it out.

No, you are not.

It is really very simple. For this leg of the PNR the starting airport was Brussels. Airlines use a Minimum Connection Time to plan PNRs. If a 30 minute delay meant that the MCT was too short that voids the entire routing. Whether or not the corresponding flight was delayed is obviously of no consequence until we discover a way to see into the future.

Given the enormous consequences of the weather on all flights in EUR and US a reroute within 48 hrs is actually quite an achievement. Some pax had to wait for over a week.

The only mistake the airline made was lying to prevent pax from trying to get on board of the feeder flight. Although even here I can imagine you misunderstood. Your PNR was cancelled due to the delay of the feeder flight. If KL had let them board they would have been liable for further delays. They made the right choice. I find the compensation you got generous and unnecessary.

We should be thankful that the board benefits from a Judge-and no mere ordinary judge- but a judge who does not feel constrained in delivery of "justice" by petty reference to laws already delivered by an elected legislature. (Such laws including EC 261/2004-and definitions found therein-including (j) below-although there is no reference to "PNR" in those defintions or elsewhere in Ec 261/2004).

What is more revealing is that this exercise of the judicial function is so "very simple" that it should be obvious to anybody.



(j) "denied boarding" means a refusal to carry passengers on a flight, although they have presented themselves for boarding under the conditions laid down in Article 3(2), except where there are reasonable grounds to deny them boarding, such as reasons of health, safety or security, or inadequate travel documentation;

I was wondering- on your theory on the (lack of) liability of the carrier-and in your written judgment to the parties to this dispute- what would you determine are the "reasonable grounds" available to be submitted in these circumstances?

Would the carrier submit, for example, that the passenger would benefit from greater security from being in his own bed than suffer the greater risk of air travel?

I'm wondering how the media might provide "gloss" to the judgment in its reporting of the story- perhaps-"carrier tells passenger-you are better off staying in bed rather than attempting to travel with us as our flights are sometimes delayed-but be warned you may suffer bed sores because you might need to stay in bed for a week".

We should be thankful that the board benefits from a Judge-and no mere ordinary judge- { snip } suffer bed sores because you might need to stay in bed for a week".

Hey, don't take my advice if you don't want it... I don't care.

Re-read the MCT statement and let it sink in. Given that the delay in BRU was caused by severe weather that (imho) means that the entire delay is attributable to bad weather. Under the Montreal convention you have no right to compensation if the delay is caused by bad weather. It is not even an issue here.

If you think I am a blabbering idiot (you would not be the first) then by all means: go to court.

Hey, don't take my advice if you don't want it... I don't care.

Re-read the MCT statement and let it sink in. Given that the delay in BRU was caused by severe weather that (imho) means that the entire delay is attributable to bad weather. Under the Montreal convention you have no right to compensation if the delay is caused by bad weather. It is not even an issue here.

If you think I am a blabbering idiot (you would not be the first) then by all means: go to court.

If I wanted or felt in need of advice I would search out a competent source for that advice-from a source that was responsible for that advice.


Personally I would call upon two possible sources for that competent and responsible advice.

I have access to legal expenses insurance indemnity within my household insurance policy. Those insurers have agreed to pay for that advice and assistance and legal representation through court proceedings if I have a legal dispute-including a dispute with a service provider such as an air carrier.

I have similar agreed legal expense indemnity from my annual travel insurance policy.

As such, if I had a reasonably founded dispute with a carrier-and that carrier was not minded to achieve an early and reasonable compromise with me-yes I would go to court and would ask my insurers to pay for the costs of prosecuting that dispute and indemnify me for an adverse costs award if I was unsuccessful.

If I received advice that I had potential cause of action under the Montreal Convention (possibly in addition or alternative to other legal causes of action) -given the complexity of such matters- I would certainly wish advice from someone with existing specialist knowledge and experience in that area of law.

I would certainly invite further elaboration from that professional advice giver of a statement
"Under the Montreal convention you have no right to compensation if the delay is caused by bad weather. It is not even an issue here."

Well, the OP DID obviously come here asking for advice. No need to get so worked up about it.

Well, the OP DID obviously come here asking for advice. No need to get so worked up about it.

:D

Or (s)he could have simply said that I was a blabbering idiot... :)

But I am still right. Do some research.

Thanks for your reply

I'm thinking that they will just blindly claim weather delays and that it is therefore exempt from the 261/2004 rules. Can I confidently say that this is indeed a case of denied boarding, or do they have a good case to say that this counts as extraordinary circumstances?

I also flew on 21 December to AMS. The airport was closed due to a very bad snowstorm in the morning and then not fully operational for the rest of the day (and I even believe on Monday); many other European airports had similar problems that week. Groundpersonnel in Rome had limited information if we were still flying to Amsterdam and when, because almost all European flights were stranded somewhere. We arrived 3 hours late in AMS where 100s and 100s people were standing in line for transfer desks waiting for hours (really true). I had to spend the night in one of the last hotel rooms that were available, more than 400 passengers spent it on fold-out beds at the airport.

The ground staff probably did receive conflicting messages on when and if the plane was leaving. It is is easy to say afterwards "I could have made my connection as it was also departing late", but at that exact moment, almost no-one was making their connections in AMS which meant 1000s of stranded people.

I think it was wise from KLM and any other airlines to limit the number of customers that had a high risk to be stranded that day. And if there is a day that they could claim exemption due to extraordinary circumstances, it is definitely the 21st of December. Unfortunately for you, me, and 1000s of other passengers.

On 21 December 2009, my girlfriend and I were flying from BRU to YVR via AMS on KLM. When we arrived at BRU to drop off our baggage (we had checked in online), the check-in desks were not yet open although there was a long queue. We were repeatedly told (by the Flight Care agents representing KLM) that the flight from BRU to AMS might be cancelled due to snow, but to keep waiting (instead of taking a train or other transportation to AMS). Eventually we were told that the flight was indeed cancelled, although a group of travelers who were connecting through to Tokyo were taken away (apparently there were other arrangements made for this group). In the end we were re-booked (incorrectly, but that's another story) for a BA flight two days later.

It has since become clear that the flight from BRU to AMS was in fact not cancelled at all, but was actually only delayed by 30 minutes. I've written a complaint letter to KLM, and have been told that the flight was only delayed (due to weather) and not cancelled, and it was due to this delay (and the expectation that we would be too late for our connection to YVR in AMS) that we were re-booked. They have offered a relatively small compensation in the form of a 200 euro flight voucher for each of us as a sign of goodwill, but I'm wondering if I should leave it at this.

First of all, there is the issue of being lied to about the flight being cancelled; secondly, there is the fact that had we been able to board our flight to AMS we still would have easily made our connection to YVR (in fact, due to the YVR connection being delayed, the layover time in AMS would have increased from an hour and a half to two hours). Finally, I'm thinking that this is a situation of denied boarding, and not just a delay: if the flight from BRU to AMS was only delayed, can KLM deny us boarding due to a worry that we won't make our connection in AMS?

I've done quite a bit of searching about EC 261/2004, but I'm not sure how this situation fits into that. Any advice on what my rights are here would be greatly appreciated!

Having said all that, I also have to say that I've always been an extremely happy customer of KLM up until this incident; up until now I've always felt that it is a great airline.



Hi Greid,

I worked that day, we had several flights heavily delayed (AY, TAP & LO) and 2 cancelled (IB).We had about 180 passengers at our desk, and I can concur it was hell.
Start my shift at 12.30pm and I finished just before midnight, no break, nothing. The advise that we got from IB, was to inform passengers that they were able to get full refund if not flying due weather, or going to rebooked on the next available flight (more bad weather was forecasted).
Can tell you from experience, if almost every single flight, I'm only talking about Amsterdam is cancelled or delayed, it does not make sense to rebook you. You will get stranded somewhere. And about KL, have seen the lines behind passport control, I can assure you, when you would have arrived in Amsterdam that day, you would have missed your connection , you had to go in line, and the worst thing is, there are 1000 people in front off you.
That they were able to rebook you asap, that's really great seen the circumstances that or those days.


KLM did what they had to do, minimize the pax get stranded in Amsterdam.
And a lot of others airlines did also that day all over Europe.

dutch_122

I also flew out of Europe on December 21, after getting snowed-in at GVA on December 20. As I recall many airports in northern Europe closed on the 20th, and I was lucky to get rebooked on the very last seat on the next day's outbound to Asia by calling the US line and bypassing the hundreds of people waiting at both ticket counters and European phone lines. The next open flights to my destination were on xmas eve.
Tokyo was one of the rare destinations with open seats on December 21, which might explain why an effort was made to get NRT-bound pax to AMS that day.

While there is no condoning an outright lie, it seems to me KLM acted properly in this situation. In my own experience, airlines generally do not want passengers flying to connecting airports when there is a good chance the connecting flight may be missed. It is preferrable to have customers at their point of origin where they can, presumably, arrange a hotel more easily or go home rather than camping out on granite floors and waiting in line for hours.

The compensation seems fair IMHO. Especially considering the fairly dramatic weather circumstances at the time. Airports all over Europe were a mess.

My friends also traveled during that time and they had a total nightmare by comparison. Their flight AMS-CDG on KL was delayed causing them to miss their onwards connection to CUR. There were no available flights for two days. They were finally routed via ATL, but again missed a connection due to the continuing bad weather in Europe at the time. Their bags arrived back in AMS after they had returned in the Netherlands after being stranded in ATL for a while... they have yet to receive compensation, if at all.

But try getting compensation with the EU claims procedures, it doesn't hurt to try. I doubt a local court in Canada will help, seeing as they presumably have no jurisdiction in the matter and cannot enforce EU compensation laws.

While there is no condoning an outright lie, it seems to me KLM acted properly in this situation. In my own experience, airlines generally do not want passengers flying to connecting airports when there is a good chance the connecting flight may be missed. It is preferrable to have customers at their point of origin where they can, presumably, arrange a hotel more easily or go home rather than camping out on granite floors and waiting in line for hours.

The compensation seems fair IMHO. Especially considering the fairly dramatic weather circumstances at the time. Airports all over Europe were a mess.

My friends also traveled during that time and they had a total nightmare by comparison. Their flight AMS-CDG on KL was delayed causing them to miss their onwards connection to CUR. There were no available flights for two days. They were finally routed via ATL, but again missed a connection due to the continuing bad weather in Europe at the time. Their bags arrived back in AMS after they had returned in the Netherlands after being stranded in ATL for a while... they have yet to receive compensation, if at all.

But try getting compensation with the EU claims procedures, it doesn't hurt to try. I doubt a local court in Canada will help, seeing as they presumably have no jurisdiction in the matter and cannot enforce EU compensation laws.


many times in these kind of situations we do see that departments are NOT able anymore to communicate with each other, or given each other wrong info.
Well, to be really honest, if the weather would not have been improved I would have advised NOT to going via ATL (after explaining what would happen in worse case scenario, if missing their connection).

They always can file a complaint. if they are going get any compensation.....?

dutch_122

Under the Montreal convention you have no right to compensation if the delay is caused by bad weather. It is not even an issue here.



Sorry baby, but your statement is wrong. Article 19 of the Montreal convention does not exclude any particular reason for delay:

"Article 19 - Delay

The carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers, baggage or cargo. Nevertheless, the carrier shall not be liable for damage occasioned by delay if it proves that it an its servants and agents took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for it or them to take such measures."

OP has a strong case, because it would be hard to prove that all reasonable measures were taken to avoid the delay when the flights actually took off only 30 minutes later than scheduled. Also OP is entitled to much more than 600 Euro compensation under the Montreal convention (Article 22): 4150 Special Drawing Rights, which amounts to something like 3700 Euros.

Sorry baby, but your statement is wrong.

No, you are. The MC explicitly names bad weather as an exception.

Generally speaking you are not entitled to anything in cases of delays or cancellations caused by


political instability,
bad weather,
a security risk,
an unexpected flight risk or
strikes.


The cause of the delay must be under the airlines control for them to be liable (duh) and of course bad weather isn't. As you can deduct from the stories by others there was no way that the pax could have made his connection with less than the MCT available to him.

I really do not understand people who blindly think they can get compensated for everything. Thank the Americans for that BS I say.

No, you are. The MC explicitly names bad weather as an exception.

Cite the article, please.



The cause of the delay must be under the airlines control for them to be liable (duh) and of course bad weather isn't. As you can deduct from the stories by others there was no way that the pax could have made his connection with less than the MCT available to him.

According to the OP he would have made the connection. Under IRROPS it would be very reasonable not to apply the MCT so strictly, if the alternative would be excessive delays of two or more days and the actual delay was only 30 min. For such short delays I would even consider holding the connecting flight as very reasonable. In fact, KLM did just this for me a few years back for a TATL flight when my incoming connection was late (and I was only a lowly Y passenger).

According to the OP he would have made the connection. (....) For such short delays I would even consider holding the connecting flight as very reasonable. In fact, KLM did just this for me a few years back for a TATL flight when my incoming connection was late (and I was only a lowly Y passenger).

Just read the other entries from us who flew (or knew of others that flew) that day. This was not an ordinary day as 1000s of passengers were stranded at Schiphol. The OP would not have made his connection as the airport was a mess, and 100s of planes were delayed and 1000s of stranded passengers trying to get information, standing at passport control, etc. In those circumstances asking KLM to hold a plane to be reasonable? You must be kidding :rolleyes:

No, you are. The MC explicitly names bad weather as an exception.Henkybaby, the aplomb with which you dismiss trajectory's post is rather misplaced. trajectory correctly quoted the appropriate legal provision applicable under the Montreal Convention. There is no explicit reference to bad weather as an excuse for liability under the Montreal Convention. Art 19, as correctly stated in trajectory's post, allows the airline to avoid liability if they can show that they have done all they could reasonably do to avoid the damage. This can provide a let-out clause in weather-related irrops but only within the terms of Art 19. I would have thought that the situation, as described by the OP, would conceivably allow KL to argue that they took all reasonable steps but there is at least an arguable case here.

It seems to me that:
a) you are confusing Reg 261/2004 and the Montreal Convention (which are two distinct sources of rights for pax in cases of delays);
and that
b) as far as Reg 261/2004 is concerned, you are basing yourself on a noddy's guide to the Reg rather than the text of the Reg itself.

As regards the application of Reg 261/2004, it seems to me that, as hinted in an earlier post by Shona, there is at least an arguable case of IDB within the terms of the Reg: the pax presented himself/herself in time with the requisite documents to check-in for the flight to AMS and was denied boarding. Now, I am NOT saying that there is a clear-cut case of IDB here. Whether the provisions on IDB in the Reg would apply in such a situation is rather unclear, not least because the Reg as a whole is rather unclear as to how exactly it applies to delays affecting only one of several successive flights on a single itinerary. But there is at least an arguable case and I, for one, would not bet money as to how this one would be resolved by the ECJ, were it confronted with the issue.

No, you are. The MC explicitly names bad weather as an exception.Henkybaby, the aplomb with which you dismiss trajectory's post is rather misplaced. trajectory correctly quotes the appropriate legal provision applicable under the Montreal Convention. There is no explicit reference to bad weather as an excuse for liability under the Montreal Convention. Art 19, as mentioned in trajectory's post, allows the airline to avoid liability if they can show that they have done all they could reasonably do to avoid the damage. This can provide a let-out clause in weather-related irrops but only within the terms of Art 19. I would have thought that the situation, as described by the OP, would conceivably allow KL to argue that they took all reasonable steps but there is at least an arguable case here.

It seems to me that:
a) you are confusing Reg 261/2004 and the Montreal Convention (which are two distinct sources of rights for pax in cases of delays);
and that
b) as far as Reg 261/2004 is concerned, you are basing yourself on a noddy's guide to the Reg rather than the text of the Reg itself.

As regards the application of Reg 261/2004, it seems to me that, as hinted in an earlier post by Shona, there is at least an arguable case of IDB within the terms of the Reg: the pax presented himself/herself in time with the requisite documents to check-in for the flight to AMS and was denied boarding. Now, I am NOT saying that there is a clear-cut case of IDB here. Whether the provisions on IDB in the Reg would apply in such a situation is rather unclear, not least because the Reg as a whole is rather unclear as to how exactly it applies to delays affecting only one of several successive flights on a single itinerary. But there is at least an arguable case and I, for one, would not bet money as to how this one would be resolved by the ECJ, were it confronted with the issue.

Henkybaby, the pax presented himself/herself in time with the requisite documents to check-in for the flight to AMS and was denied boarding.

Funny, I read the original message very different. The pax arrived at the airport, waited, was informed the flight was cancelled, was re-booked, probably went home and heard afterwards that the flight had left, also heard afterwards that his connecting flight was delayed out of Amsterdam and assumed, not knowing of the mess in Amsterdam, that he would have made his orginal connection. If so, no case of denied boarding, the pax just left and afterwards complaint and received a 200 euro travel voucher. But (s)he wants more out of this, why I am clueless as no-one of us knows the financial damages (s)he occured by having to leave 2 days later.

All speculations, but that is apparently the case of all entries are in this post.

I stand corrected that my addition was the common interpretation of the exception to the article. However in this case you will be hard pressed to find any judge who would award compensation given the situation on that day and the MCT issue.

My 'boldness' in my responses is due to my growing irritation with people trying to abuse this article to claim compensation for nearly everything and do so with a very demeaning attitude towards the airlines. It is consumerism running amok and it annoys me.

As regards the application of Reg 261/2004, it seems to me that, as hinted in an earlier post by Shona, there is at least an arguable case of IDB within the terms of the Reg: the pax presented himself/herself in time with the requisite documents to check-in for the flight to AMS and was denied boarding.

Actually, the OP states that he had checked in online already. He was just waiting in line at the baggage drop counter.

However in this case you will be hard pressed to find any judge who would award compensation given the situation on that day and the MCT issue.I would not be so sure. It seems to me that, while the chances of success of a claim based on the Montreal Convention would be on the low side (and, in any event, the OP would have to demonstrate a loss and compensation would be for that loss rather than a statutory amount), there would, OTOH, be a fighting chance of success on the Reg 261/2004 IDB front. Not guaranteed, of course, but a reasonable chance. There is, to my knowledge, no jurisprudence on the point in any of the higher courts in Europe on this (and there is definitely no jurisprudence yet from the ECJ on the issue).

Henkybaby

You might want to check out the forum on flightmole: http://www.flightmole.com/forum/index.php.

There are a number of cases (albeit only heard at a court of first instance) where pax have successfully won compensation from airlines under 261/2004 where the airline's defence was one of 'weather', even hurricanes are not 'extraordinary' in certain geographies during certain times of the year! Oh hang on, this sounds familiar: http://www.flightmole.com/forum/showthread.php?t=613

Some pax have even been compensated prior to any court hearing.

Cityboy62

Oh hang on, this sounds familiar: http://www.flightmole.com/forum/showthread.php?t=613

Some pax have even been compensated prior to any court hearing.

Cityboy62

This is however a completely different story where BA cancelled a flight not because of the direct weather but because they failed to get their crew to the airport on time (I scanned the topic briefly, so I maybe wrong) so the flight was cancelled for reason directly attributable to BA.

I still am disgusted by the claimant culture we are now developing in the EU too. It was bad enough when it was only in the US.

I still am disgusted by the claimant culture we are now developing in the EU too. It was bad enough when it was only in the US.

Like you, I tend to be saddened/annoyed by an increasing trend to systematic requests for compensation and systematic attempt at involving courts in many human and social conflicts. However, in this particular case, the OP is not trying to push the realm of compensation beyond its existing limits but very explicitly asking in his opening post whether the case he experienced was covered by a widely publicised EU regulation. To me, there was no difference between this post and one which would ask, say, after how long a delay the French SNCF is obliged to provide compensation.

In fact, beyond the fact that I would certainly not have passed moral judgement on the OP either way, in this particular case, I find the tone of his first post perfectly measured and sensible. You will note that nowhere in this first post you will find the words 'law suit', 'court', 'sue', or anything remotely similar (which re undoubtedly at the heart of the 'claimant culture' you mention and are indeed part of many posts by people whose experience have been far less unpleasant than that experienced by the OP). Similarly, in his second post, it is quite clear that what he intends to do is to claim something from the airline (he is afraid they will answer....) and not from a judge.

In short, he is merely asking two questions which are genuinely interesting: (1) is what I experienced equivalent to a case of denied boarding? and (2) what are my rights under EC261/2004? What makes his two questions interesting is that in my opinion, neither makes for an 'obvious' answer. Like NickB, based on the cases heard so far by the court of first instance as well as national jurisdictions, I wouldn't be surprised if IF it went to court, it MAY result in the airline being considered not to have taken 'every reasonable step' to take the passengers to their final destination in such a way as to minimise delay and inconvenience. Now, one may or may not like EC261/2004 (I actually happen to think that it is a very sensible piece of legislation), but my guess is that even the boldest of sollicitors would be very 'nuanced' in their evaluation of whether the OP's case might 'fit' it or not. In this sense, the OP's questions made perfect sense to me.

I would add three more points.

- Firstly, airlines - as suit originators this time - have played an incredibly important role and extending the US 'claimant culture' to Europe. Almost all major European airlines have either threatened to sue or sued other airlines, airport operators etc in the context of airport slots and access (e.g. the Linate case), 'unfair competition' by low cost carriers (e.g. AF vs Ryanair), or asking courts to consider a strike action illegal (e.g. BA's recent successful law suit against unite). So if they initiate law suits when they feel victimised, doesn't it make sense that their passengers will too?

- Secondly, in their general attitude, airlines are not helping to minimise the feeling of suspicion many passengers feel towards them. For instance, KLM has this very bad tendency to still assert to non-elite economy passengers who are stranded in AMS because of a cancelled flight or a missed connection on one PNR that they do not owe them overnight accommodation (I have heard it said so many times). This is plainly wrong and makes it logical that passengers will keep wondering whether the airline is really doing what it should in cases of irregular operation. In other words, airlines clearly behave like 'parties' in the conflict and not like 'self-enforcers' of the rules that define their responsibilities towards passengers, so it makes sense that at times, this will lead to clashes and to passengers feeling short-changed.

- Thirdly , in this particular case, taking the OP's comments at face value, I can understand that his girlfriend and him may have been particularly enraged by the impression of being lied to/played for suckers by the airline. This certainly does not facilitate trust. It is also unclear whether the '2 days later' rerouting was the best available - or the best available on KLM, which would be two very different things. It certainly, in any case, a significant disruption to one's plans. Finally, one remark is also a bit unclear from the OP's post - he mentioned the possibility of taking other forms of transportation to Amsterdam - if it meant that they would have had the time/possibility to do so if they arrived early enough, and if the OP offered this as a possible solution, this could also suggest that the OP and his girlfriend had mentioned some practical possible solutions to the problem, which may further weaken KLM's position.

So I completely agree with your general point about the ridicule of developing a 'courts culture' in Europe but I really don't think from the OP's point that he is in any way a part of this problem.

I still am disgusted by the claimant culture we are now developing in the EU too. It was bad enough when it was only in the US.One reaps what one sows...

For decades, airlines have benefitted from contracts of carriage which were massively one-sided: put succinctly, the only obligation that airlines accepted was to do their best to get you to your destination some time (schedules are not contractually binding), in some way (they reserve the right to substitute alternative modes of transport if they so wished) providing some kind of service (catering, confort, etc... are not part of the contract so, ultimately, at the discretion of the airline).

This gross imbalance in the terms of the contract was somewhat counterbalanced by a willingness of airlines to look after their pax over and beyond what they were contractually bound to. For instance, in case of irrops, most airlines would have put you on the next flight even on another IATA carrier without thinking twice about it. These were the 'good old days' of higher service, little competition (restrictive bilateral air service agreements made sure of that) but also higher fares.

Then liberalisation came in and, with it, carriers who undercut prices of the former flag carriers but no longer played the game of benevolent paternalism formerly practised by airline (the poster child of this being, of course, Ryanair). The former flag carriers then became increasingly defensive and what was previously regarded as standard service then became something that airlines regarded as an unnecessary luxury.

Full-service carriers have increasingly limited themselves to providing just what they were legally bound to and no more. As airlines started to increasingly play hardball, so did passengers in return.

If there is an increasing litigation culture, it owes just as much to the change of attitudes in airlines as it owes to pax. So, perhaps you should direct your disgust at the change of culture in the airlines approach to their customers? After all, the airlines which open themselves, and are most subject, to litigation are not those who provide the highest level or service...

First of all, thank you to everyone who has provided information on this thread so far; your help and advice is greatly appreciated.

Just to clarify, the biggest issues to me were the facts that: we were lied to about the status of the flight (for reasons that I still don't understand), we were told to keep waiting while there was still enough time to get to Schiphol via train or car (at least theoretically), and an additional point that I didn't mention previously but also had a major effect on the whole experience: the re-booking that was made was made incorrectly (only one seat was booked), and we were told that we wouldn't be able to make the re-booked flight either (although KLM wouldn't acknowledge this fact at the time). The whole experience was very stressful and unpleasant.

In any case, I've since heard back from KLM and they have offered to up the compensation to a 800 euro TCV per passenger, which I feel very satisfied with, and it will certainly convince me to continue to use KLM regularly (which I already did) and continue to recommend it to others.

In any case, I've since heard back from KLM and they have offered to up the compensation to a 800 euro TCV per passenger, which I feel very satisfied with, and it will certainly convince me to continue to use KLM regularly (which I already did) and continue to recommend it to others.

That's excellent news - and proof that you were right to challenge the first (honestly pretty miserable) offer. I am quite certain that the new offer confirms that in the KLM's advisors' perception, you would quite conceivably be entitled to €600 cash and were wrongly treated. It is very good that this could be sorted out amicably in a way that seems reasonable to both parties.

In any case, I've since heard back from KLM and they have offered to up the compensation to a 800 euro TCV per passenger, which I feel very satisfied with, and it will certainly convince me to continue to use KLM regularly (which I already did) and continue to recommend it to others.

Excellent! Don't get me wrong, my comments were not aimed at you. I think KLM handled this badly and you are entitled to compensation but not because of the article. If KLM had simply told you that there was no way that you could make the connection and therefore they would not let you start you journey things would have been different. Something tells me they did not do this because most passengers will simply not accept this and will demand to board the flight, resulting in more delays and problems. Not saying you would have, but in general.

Add to that the utter overload that KLM's call centres and other departments must have experienced during this period I can only imagine that it is not completely illogical that things went wrong. Again, not saying that justifies things, but it does explain them.

I think you can thank KLM for not letting you board that flight. I was at AMS during one of the heavy snow days in December and people who missed their flight were waiting in line for the transfer desk for over 5 hours... I took some pictures.

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL359/11064950/22826533/380020950.jpg

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL359/11064950/22826533/380020953.jpg

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL359/11064950/22826533/380020919.jpg

These are all of 1 line about 500 meters long. People where sleeping at the airport on stretchers and the floor because all the hotels where full. Be very happy that you were somewhere else...

These are all of 1 line about 500 meters long. People where sleeping at the airport on stretchers and the floor because all the hotels where full. Be very happy that you were somewhere else...

The lines look scary. And indeed, I should say that my own preference in general is - by far - that likely IRROPS be sorted out at my airport of origin already rather than being taken 2 or 3 hours late to the point of connection, knowing the said connection will be missed and having to sort it out there with the predictable crowded desks of transfer airports. It is also the only way to sometimes negotiate a routing with a different airline. In a paradoxical way, one of the best airline at that used to be AZ. Of my 5 or 6 likely missed connection all but one resulted in reroutings with other airlines that had been pre-arranged without my needing to do anything. It was 2 or 3 years ago so of course things may have changed!

In a paradoxical way, one of the best airline at that used to be AZ.That has also been my experience, with the latest one being a little over a year ago. Straightforward, no fuss, no having to argue for ages for something half-decent unlike many others, KL included. I understand, however, that others have had less fortunate experiences with AZ at FCO.
As regards KL, ironically, my experience ex-UK (dating back to several years ago, however) was the exact opposite of the OP, viz. they systematically sent you to AMS, regardless of the odds of making the connection as they did not empower local handling agents to re-route you on other carriers.

As regards KL, ironically, my experience ex-UK (dating back to several years ago, however) was the exact opposite of the OP, viz. they systematically sent you to AMS, regardless of the odds of making the connection as they did not empower local handling agents to re-route you on other carriers.

Me too. Unlike AF, they also never let me on an earlier flight to AMS even when I was early enough for two such flights and they were far from full. In particular, KL and CO are tied for my two worst IRROPS nightmare stories...

This is however a completely different story where BA cancelled a flight not because of the direct weather but because they failed to get their crew to the airport on time (I scanned the topic briefly, so I maybe wrong) so the flight was cancelled for reason directly attributable to BA.

I still am disgusted by the claimant culture we are now developing in the EU too. It was bad enough when it was only in the US.

Henky

Just to clear this up and I don't blame you for scanning the topic, but BA claimed weather and lack of replacement aircraft all the way through the case. It was only the judge that ruled that it was due to the lack of staff (somewhat surprisingly to both BA and myself)!

Cityboy62

Henky

Just to clear this up and I don't blame you for scanning the topic, but BA claimed weather and lack of replacement aircraft all the way through the case. It was only the judge that ruled that it was due to the lack of staff (somewhat surprisingly to both BA and myself)!

Cityboy62

Yeah, I found it somewhat strange too. This ruling may be a bit of a black swan.

The problem with the EU passenger rights is that the regulation is virgin legislation as it only stem from February 15. 2005. Until beginning of 2008 the airlines have had a field day in reciting the regulation to heir own advantage ( and they still do ) refering to text out of context. Since beginning 2008 we have rom a consumers view recieved a number of imprtant court judgements in afvour fo the consumers.. look here..http://passagerrettigheder.dk/EU_COURT_DECISIONS.htm

Postscript to this 'denied boarding' thread. Other pax were also compensated for this event in the UK. See this thread on MSE:http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=2313447

Cityboy62