Flying Blue (Air France, KLM, and Other Partners) - Public consultation possible revision of Regulation (EC) 261/2004 for air passengers

Regulation (EC) 261/2004 (hereafter, the Regulation) introduced important new rights for air passengers in the event of denied boarding, long delay, cancellations and downgrading. The Regulation took effect in 2005 and sets a minimum level of quality standards in order to protect passengers.

For more detailed information on this public consultation, please consult the air passenger rights website: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/passengers/consultations/2012-03-11-apr_en.htm

The present consultation aims to gather stakeholders' views on the identification of possible shortcomings of the Regulation and their extent, and on the options to improve its application, either via non-legislative measures or via a revision of the Regulation.

This is an anonymous survey, and therefore, you are not obliged to give any personal details and the rules on personal data protection apply.

http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/forms/dispatch?form=APR2

Thanks to a moderator that could add "ngers" to "passe" in the title of the thread... ^

It's not possible, as the length of a thread title is limited, and you exceeded it (hence the "ngers" was cut off!)

It's not possible, as the length of a thread title is limited, and you exceeded it (hence the "ngers" was cut off!)

One can reduce "consultation" by "consult" :)

I answered the survey, thanks!

One can reduce "consultation" by "consult" :)

Or perhaps remove "on air passe" because I think everyone here will know what 261/2004 refers to!!

Done,

Gajan

I answered the survey, thanks!

Me too and I seriously would urge all FTers to do the same (might be worth circulating a link to moderators of other EU airlines?). The questionnaire is long but involves ESSENTIAL issues as some airlines are trying to petition to limit their liability (e.g. by limiting compensation right to only a % of the ticket price. Good luck to you when your Ryanair flight is cancelled on 1 August and you are faced having to pay a huge amount to fly back home and only getting €5 back because your original ticket was cheap!) or what happens in case of combined delays caused by missed connections or problems with multi-airlines itineraries.

It is also a chance to make the system fairer, for instance by answering questions on shared liability (should airlines be able to seek part repayment from airport operators when delays or cancellations are caused by airport malfunctions?) or extending compensation obligations to flight from outside the EU into the EU by non-EU carriers for flights purchased in the EU.

Me too and I seriously would urge all FTers to do the sameDone!

(might be worth circulating a link to moderators of other EU airlines?). Excellent idea, the more responses from the traveling public the better.

Very comprehensive survey, well worth completing. The questions seem skewed towards increasing the scope of the regulation, expanding passengers' rights and enhancing compliance and enforcement.

The airlines will no doubt scream blue murder and bring all their lobbying power to bear on the Commission and EU parliament, so it imperative that we make our voices heard.

Johan

The airlines will no doubt scream blue murder and bring all their lobbying power to bear on the Commission and EU parliament, so it imperative that we make our voices heard.

Johan

You're absolutely right: they will!! Re-skewing, I think you are partly right but there are also a few suggestions that could lead to lowering rights - for instance the proposal to increase the threshold for compensation to a higher level than the current three hours (claiming it might lead to less of an incentive for airlines to cancel altogether, ie rubbish in my opinion) or the proposal to replace fixed compensation levels by % of ticket prices (a long standing Ryanair demand). So well worth many of us saying what we think of it indeed!

And I totally agree with you, I think it is a pretty interesting/sophisticated survey in part because the issues discussed are fairly specific and also because of the large number of open fields which allow you to specify your views. I'd say they have done a pretty good job overall!! ^

Here we go:

MEPs push for clear and enforceable air passenger rights (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/pressroom/content/20120329IPR42138/html/MEPs-push-for-clear-and-enforceable-air-passenger-rights)

Note the votes: 509 in favor, 20 against :eek:

Note the votes: 509 in favor, 20 against :eek:Anybody surprised? The average MEP probably takes several J class flights a week. The taxpayer pays for the tickets, the MEPs pocket the compensation for cancelations and delays.

Johan

Anybody surprised? The average MEP probably takes several J class flights a week. The taxpayer pays for the tickets, the MEPs pocket the compensation for cancelations and delays.

Johan

As somebody who spends a lot of time on the same flights as MEPs, I can tell you that I have almost never seen an MEP fly in biz.

I have almost never seen an MEP fly in biz.How does one actually recognize a MEP? Has greed permanently affected their facial features?

Johan

How does one actually recognize a MEP? Has greed permanently affected their facial features?

Johanmmm... sounds like somebody is carrying a gigantic chip on their shoulder, there.

mmm... sounds like somebody is carrying a gigantic chip on their shoulder, there.:D

I'll happily confess that I'm none too impressed by the European Parliament as an institution. I do not believe it does all that much to address the EU's democratic deficiencies, and such small matters as the monthly Strasbourg circus do nothing to increase its legitimacy. Having said that, I have nevertheless concientiously voted in every single EP election, obviously for the least rotten apple I could find. I'm even given the opportunity to vote for two apples each time, on the condition that I promise to vote for only one.

Johan

:D

I'll happily confess that I'm none too impressed by the European Parliament as an institution. I do not believe it does all that much to address the EU's democratic deficiencies, and such small matters as the monthly Strasbourg circus do nothing to increase its legitimacy.Well, the MEPs do not like the monthly Strasbourg circus anymore than you do and have repeatedly called in the past for its abolition and relocation in Brussels. This, however, is not their call.

On the wider issue of the democratic deficit (of which the 'Strasbourg circus' is but a consequence), we need to be realistic on what can be achieved. As long as we want the EU to remain a hybrid structure rather than a full-blown state (and I do not see anybody out there other than at the fringe arguing for that), there is only so far you can go in terms of democratisation. You can certainly not argue that the EP has not done what it could to push the EU towards a parliamentary democracy model (not least because it would be in their own institutional interest, it has to be said) but that is pretty much a non-starter as long as we want to preserve (rightly, imo, but that is by the by) a central role for Member States in decision-making processes.

In any event, this has nothing to do with the behaviour of individual MEPs as such. There is a difference between systemtic deficiencies and limitations and individual ethical behaviour. I must say that I feel very uncomfortable with that tarring of MPs and politicians generally as rapacious individuals out to con everybody. There are no doubt some individuals who have dubious ethics but for the most part do not behave any differently than most would. We have been there in the past in the 1930s with anti-parliamentarism and it is not an experience I would care to repeat.

:D

I'll happily confess that I'm none too impressed by the European Parliament as an institution. I do not believe it does all that much to address the EU's democratic deficiencies, and such small matters as the monthly Strasbourg circus do nothing to increase its legitimacy.Well, the MEPs do not like the monthly Strasbourg circus anymore than you do and have repeatedly called in the past for its abolition and relocation in Brussels. This, however, is not their call.

On the wider issue of the democratic deficit (of which the 'Strasbourg circus' is but a consequence), we need to be realistic on what can be achieved. As long as we want the EU to remain a hybrid structure rather than a full-blown state (and I do not see anybody out there other than at the fringe arguing for that), there is only so far you can go in terms of democratisation. You can certainly not argue that the EP has not done what it could to push the EU towards a parliamentary democracy model (not least because it would be in their own institutional interest, it has to be said) but that is pretty much a non-starter as long as we want to preserve (rightly, imo, but that is by the by) a central role for Member States in decision-making processes.

In any event, this has nothing to do with the behaviour of individual MEPs as such. There is a difference between systemic deficiencies and limitations and individual ethical behaviour. I must say that I feel very uncomfortable with that tarring of MPs and politicians generally as rapacious individuals out to con everybody. There are no doubt some individuals who have dubious ethics but for the most part do not behave any differently than most would in cmoparable situations. We have been there in the past in the 1930s with anti-parliamentarism and it is not an experience I would care to repeat.

Any way, we are getting way OT and it is perhaps time to come back on topic. :)

There is a difference between systemic deficiencies and limitations and individual ethical behaviour.But in politics that difference can be disturbingly small, to the point where deficiencies and unethical behavior end up in a mutually reinforcing negative spiral. Even within the EU certain countries are or have been run by party machines.

Anyhow, as long as the MEPs improve on 261/2004, I do not care whether they do it in Brussels or Strasbourg.

Johan