Air France Frequence Plus - AF Compensation for Delayed Flight

I'd posted in this thread http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/air-france-frequence-plus/1343872-flight-canceled-getting-paris.html about my trials and tribulations of getting from BLR to CDG.

Quick recap, my 0150 flight out of BLR on May 8 was canceled around 0400. AF put us up in a quite nice hotel (Movenpick), and covered our breakfast, lunch and dinner.

That afternoon we were told that the flight was rescheduled to 2315, about 21 hour delay. I complained to AF through twitter, and actually got some responses. They e-mailed me and asked that I call when I returned to the U.S. I returned to the U.S. on 5/13 and called them on 5/14. I was given the option of 600 Euro per person in cash or an 800 Euro per person voucher for use on AF in the future. I opted for the cash. They told me that they process checks every Tuesday, and it was too late for the check to go out on 5/15, but it would be mailed on 5/22 for 1200 Euro (600 Euro x 2 pax).

All in all, I think they handled this pretty well. But I wonder what happened to people that weren't so proactive about receiving their cash compensation.

Still, they receive some praise for handling this promptly. Of course I won't be completely sure they have done right until the check clears...

This compensation is nothing more than the implementation of a EU regulation, that any airline flying to/from a EU country must follow.
You normally don't have to ask for it. It must be spontaneously offered by the carrier.

you are very lucky!

After one year of letters, and justice conciliation, I abandonned.

(25 hours delay on KLM/AF from BKK to CDG via AMS )

Very lucky indeed.
The final "repayment" that my (old) son got in:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/air-france-frequence-plus/1341959-poor-customer-service-3.html
was half the fare paid, around €50, while his train ticket cost over €200.

Argument: "weather problem", while the weather was fine according to everyone and all historical weather reports for that day. As usual KL (the operator, the ticket was issued and coded AF) refused to pay any "care" or EU261 compensation for canceled flight.
In the end, it is probably a profitable strategy for KL to systematically claim some extraordinary circumstance and defy EU rules, knowing that legal burdens are just too great for individual pax. But they will lose some income from my son who is a heavy traveler, but it will affect AF bottom line, not KL. I guess that in most other cases it is just business as usual. Apparently there is a marked difference between AF and KL.

I know they're *supposed* to spontaneously offer it; it's just that they don't. Probably most people were happy enough with the Movenpick + all meals (+ internet) that they didn't make a stink about it.

I've heard stories of airlines trying to fight the compensation, even though required by law, so I'm glad they at least paid up when they had to.

In my case it was a technical problem on the plane, so no external circumstances. AF and KL have the same customer desk when you live in France

In my case it was a technical problem on the plane, so no external circumstances. AF and KL have the same customer desk when you live in France

Yes, but according to EU regulations it is the operating carrier that is supposed to bear the costs, even though the operating carrier may delegate customer interaction, for reasons such as lack of staff in a given country, to an airline that, in this case, happens to be the marketing carrier.

I'm currently in justice against Alitalia because they did not pay compensation.. next hearing in a month at the District Court of Cannes

I've heard stories of airlines trying to fight the compensation, even though required by law, so I'm glad they at least paid up when they had to.

This makes me think how on earth most LCC (read Ryan Air) get away with never paying any compensation at all? No meals, no hotels no nothing :confused:

The few times I have been unlucky with delays etc with any major carrier from the EU I have always been taken good care off, BUT yes I had to specifically ask for compensation in 8 out of 10 times (surprisingly SAS has been the only carrier being pro-active with the compensation each and every time, but maybe that's why they don't have any cash left in the bank).

Most airports do have the pamphlet with the EU consumer rights in case of delays/cancellations at check in and the departure hall...

This makes me think how on earth most LCC (read Ryan Air) get away with never paying any compensation at all? No meals, no hotels no nothing :confused:There is no difference between LCCs and KL on this front (AF tends to be better at compliance with EU Regs): equal reluctance to pay and need to insist and, if need be, go to court.

LCCs will pay in some circumstances and will provide assistance/reimburse hotels as well although many are quite mean on the amounts.

If you have to go to court, and prevail, will the airline have to cover your court costs/fees?

Otherwise it doesn't seem worth it, as even 600 Euro would probably be dwarfed by the cost (in time and money) of going to court.

If you have to go to court, and prevail, will the airline have to cover your court costs/fees?

Otherwise it doesn't seem worth it, as even 600 Euro would probably be dwarfed by the cost (in time and money) of going to court.

Not sure how the small claims system works in France. In many countries, the pointof small claims jurisidiction is to keep costs down and process relatively informal so that each party normally bear their own costs (you cannot, therefore, claim for your time; if you choose to be represented by a lawyer, which few people in small claims would, you cannot claim back for that either, etc...). OTOH, the losing party normally pays the court fees (which are normally quite low). The system is designed so that you are not put off going to court because of the potential risk of high costs should you lose.

That, in any event, is the way it works in the UK.

If you have to go to court, and prevail, will the airline have to cover your court costs/fees?

Otherwise it doesn't seem worth it, as even 600 Euro would probably be dwarfed by the cost (in time and money) of going to court.

You don't need to use a lawyer to represent you (though it can be useful), so it can limit the costs if the case is clear-cut. The court fee propers are paid by one party or split, according to the court's decision. You can claim for reimbursement of your lawyer's fees, but it's not automatically granted (and can be a token amount relative to the real lawyer's fee). You woudn't want to spend a lot on such a case anyway.

There is no difference between LCCs and KL on this front (AF tends to be better at compliance with EU Regs): equal reluctance to pay and need to insist and, if need be, go to court.

+1 I think that it is worth pointing out that the two incidents referred to above by brunos and delanotre seem to be KLM-related. KLM has been notoriously bad at abiding by its obligations with regards to EC 261/2004 (regularly refusing to accommodate passengers travelling economy class even when obliged to, refusing compensation when due, etc), AF much better. I think the OP's experience is again one of a rather good handling. Others are right that the compensation corresponds to the regulation guidelines, but I am sure other airlines would have tried their luck at suggesting that compensation did not apply because the itinerary only involved an intermediate stop in the EU (they would be wrong but I bet some would try).

Very lucky indeed.
The final "repayment" that my (old) son got in:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/air-france-frequence-plus/1341959-poor-customer-service-3.html
was half the fare paid, around €50, while his train ticket cost over €200.

Argument: "weather problem", while the weather was fine according to everyone and all historical weather reports for that day. As usual KL (the operator, the ticket was issued and coded AF) refused to pay any "care" or EU261 compensation for canceled flight.
In the end, it is probably a profitable strategy for KL to systematically claim some extraordinary circumstance and defy EU rules, knowing that legal burdens are just too great for individual pax. But they will lose some income from my son who is a heavy traveler, but it will affect AF bottom line, not KL. I guess that in most other cases it is just business as usual. Apparently there is a marked difference between AF and KL.

There is a final, and unexpected, episode to my son's claim (Unfortunately for me he is old and FB G). The claim on his AF ticket with AF flight number on 1st May was handled by KL (operating airline). It seemed obvious that the delay had nothing to do with weather as KL claimed and that he should have been properly compensated. He submitted two aviation weather reports and a nice letter but felt that this was not worth losing more time. He got a (small) part of his train ticket reimbursed by KL plus some miles.

Suddenly a letter arrived dated 18 September from AF customer service, not KL as before (KL is copied on the letter). It states that they re-studied the case and send a voucher for the unpaid difference in train ticket plus an exceptional commercial gesture of €250 (exactly the EU compensation). Well done AF! It might have cost them some money (exactly what the EU requires), but they won a lot of goodwill from him, and actually from me too :).

Wow, surprising change of events! That is a nice ending indeed. Do you think they found your comments here and looked up the claim..? ;)

companies are supposed to give the compensation right away

meaning, now checks, but if you have your credit card with you, the ticketting counter can swipe your card at the airport

it takes 24-48 hours depending on your bank to see the credit, but if you leave the airport and wait for customer service to help, you can sometimes wait for ages

companies are supposed to give the compensation right away
meaning, now checks, but if you have your credit card with you, the ticketting counter can swipe your card at the airport

Not sure where you got that from. Nowhere in the regulation does it state that compensation should be paid immediately. I've only ever seen airlines issue compensation on-site when they deny boarding due to overbooking.

Not sure where you got that from. Nowhere in the regulation does it state that compensation should be paid immediately. I've only ever seen airlines issue compensation on-site when they deny boarding due to overbooking.

Indeed, no obligation to compensate right away at all. The only 'on site' obligation is one of information about the regulation itself. And as you say, I am not aware of any airline compensating on site under EC261/2004, only typically about voluntary denied boarding.

On the other hand, regarding brunos's (grown up ;) ) son, the airline is supposed to pay the compensation in cash, not vouchers. However, in this particular case, the fact that the said compensation comes from a technically different airline and that the voucher is complemented by the train fare is, I think, a very acceptable resolution. I do, however, really wonder how come AF suddenly woke up about that one, especially if they mention 're-studying' the file which suggests that it was done in relation to KLM' mistaken handling. Good outcome anyway! ^