bmi diamond club - Cancelled Flights

I have just received a response from bmi about my complaint for a cancelled flight. The flight (from AMS - LHR) was cancelled and they put me on the later flight. I requested compensation for out of pocket expenses. I did not get this however, despite this, I was impressed with the way my complaint was handled.

I feel very strongly about delays to flights. I think that airlines are currently able to cancel flights and greatly inconvenience passengers with impunity. BMI's response satisfied me that, on this occasion, there were genuine reasons for the cancellation of this flight (rather than solely economic reasons). This is in contrast to BA who recently, in similar circumstances on another route, agreed to a request for out of pocket expenses but did not satisfy me of the reason for flight cancellation (leaving me dissatisfied overall).

As a regular passenger on the route I know that I have a choice between three full service airlines. BMI will remain my first choice whilst I remain satisfied that services are only cancelled in exceptional circumstances.

I feel very strongly about delays to flights. I think that airlines are currently able to cancel flights and greatly inconvenience passengers with impunity.

You are not the only one. There will be some progress in a couple of weeks with the new EU DBC regulation (http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=en&numdoc=304R0261), which will also cover (some) flight cancellations (see Article 5 of the Regulation).

You are not the only one. There will be some progress in a couple of weeks with the new EU DBC regulation (http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=en&numdoc=304R0261), which will also cover (some) flight cancellations (see Article 5 of the Regulation).

Unfortunately I would not have qualified on this occasion for compensation under the new regulations. I think the regulations are a step in the right direction but they are not quite tough enough. It interested me to note that en route to Schiphol to catch my bmi flight that was ultimately cancelled, my train was delayed. I was advised by my fellow passenger that, as the delay was longer than 15 minutes, I was entitled to make a claim from Dutch Rail for any consequential loss!

... It interested me to note that en route to Schiphol to catch my bmi flight that was ultimately cancelled, my train was delayed. I was advised by my fellow passenger that, as the delay was longer than 15 minutes, I was entitled to make a claim from Dutch Rail for any consequential loss!

Oh I wish! I'd be bloody rich by now! ;)

You can claim up to the total cost of your train ticket above a certain minimum (see the NS Site (http://www.ns.nl/servlet/Satellite?cid=1083234338265&pagename=www.ns.nl%2FPage%2FArtikelPage_www.ns.nl&lang=en&c=Page) if you are really interested).

Consequential loss is not covered - missed your once-in-a-lifetime job interview? Oh well!

Oh I wish! I'd be bloody rich by now! ;)

You can claim up to the total cost of your train ticket above a certain minimum (see the NS Site (http://www.ns.nl/servlet/Satellite?cid=1083234338265&pagename=www.ns.nl%2FPage%2FArtikelPage_www.ns.nl&lang=en&c=Page) if you are really interested).

Consequential loss is not covered - missed your once-in-a-lifetime job interview? Oh well!

I thought it sounded too good to be true. I do think, however, that the principle of refunding ticket price for a delay would be more appropriate than the blanket compensation applied in the EU flight compensation legislation. As you have inferred, quantifying consequential loss is difficult. In general I think there would be a correlation between ticket price paid and cost to the passenger of any delay (business travellers' time would generally have a high economic value hence they buy flexible tickets). Legislation mandating compensation in proportion to the ticket price paid would also counter a lot of the objection to the regulations.

I find it utterly bizarre that an airline should be held responsible for compensating passengers for a delay, when that delay is not the airline's fault.

Yes, the airline can cause delays. But compensating passengers because an airport is closed due to bad weather? Nah. All you're going to be doing is encouraging operators to compromise safety.

I find it utterly bizarre that an airline should be held responsible for compensating passengers for a delay, when that delay is not the airline's fault.

Yes, the airline can cause delays. But compensating passengers because an airport is closed due to bad weather? Nah. All you're going to be doing is encouraging operators to compromise safety.

Train companies compensate passengers regardless of the cause (see the link earlier in the thread). Safety is too often used an an excuse. Of course airlines should not run a flight if to do so would compromise safety however, if they are forced to cancel a flight for safety reasons due to a mechanical fault on their aircraft, I think they should be forced to offer compensation.

Train company compensation schemes have force majeure clauses. These could be executed in the event of bad weather delays. However, the airlines would argue that compensation need not be offered in the event of air traffic delays. I believe that this is perverse. Only if airlines have an economic incentive to prevent flight delays will the whole industry take action to improve performance.

Under the new reg, no compensation is due in case of delay.
In case of cancellation, compensation is not due if
the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.
What the airline must provide, however, is accommodation (where applicable) meals and refreshments + rerouting or reimbursement.

Compensation in the absence of fault on the part of the airline would be a form of risk socialisation, which is not a completely stupid idea even though there are arguments on both sides. You could argue that the same can be effected by insurance, which is true, ecept that it assumes a perfectly responsive insurance market. Look around at travel policy insurance contracts available on the market, and you will be struck at how limited the clauses on delays are. Most require extremely long delays and offer paltry compensation (something like £10 for every 12 hrs). There are some rare exceptions (Amex products tend to be a bit better of delays and cancellations than most others).
In relation to accommodation, it makes particular sense to transfer the risk to airlines, as airlines are in a far better position to negotiate set deals with hotels than Joe Public who has to find a room at the last minute at 10pm at night because his flight to Alicante has suddenly been cancelled.

Train company compensation schemes have force majeure clauses. These could be executed in the event of bad weather delays. However, the airlines would argue that compensation need not be offered in the event of air traffic delays. I believe that this is perverse. Only if airlines have an economic incentive to prevent flight delays will the whole industry take action to improve performance.

Train companies (in the UK) are compensated by NetworkRail for not being able to use the track. The money they get is then passed on the passengers who claim it albeit I doubt all of it. Do airports pay compensation to airlines when they have to shut the runways due to bad weather e.g too much snow for them to clear?
(That's not a rhetorical question)

Train companies (in the UK) are compensated by NetworkRail for not being able to use the track. The money they get is then passed on the passengers who claim it albeit I doubt all of it. Do airports pay compensation to airlines when they have to shut the runways due to bad weather e.g too much snow for them to clear?
(That's not a rhetorical question)

I understand that they do not. I believe that neither do air traffic control pay any compensation to airlines for delays. I think that this is one of the main issues that results in the current poor performance. The cost of delayed flights to airlines and their suppliers (airports / atc) does not reflect the cost to passengers and their businesses.

I'm not sure that I agree with Nick's comment earlier about compensation being risk socialisation. This implies that airlines and their suppliers are powerless to prevent delays. I believe that, with a degree of financial incentive, we could easily see significant improvement in airport, air traffic control and airline contribution to punctuality performance.