Alitalia MilleMiglia - Shame on you alitalia!!!

After hearing from a close friend of mine, a incident which he had on Alitalia I'm just furious (my emotions are high, I hope i will be able to control myself)

My friend and his was were flying LHR-TLV via FCO.
Their flight from LHR to FCO, departed slightly late, and there connection was becoming tight, they approached the chief FA, and requested to be let off the plane first after landing, as they have a connection wich is tight. The FA reassured them that it isn't necessary, as the the connection is tight due to their fault of the aircraft arriving FCO late, the TLV bound flight will wait for them.
Upon arriving at the connecting gate, it was closed in their face and they were denied boarding, although their luggage had been loaded already (and it took much longer to locate their luggage, than it would have taken to let them board).
Requesting to be booked on the next flight wich was due to depart that evening (12 hours later), they were refused as only business class was available, and were told that they would have to wait untill the next day to get a seat in economy class.
My friend which could in no way wait untill the next day, started pleading that the missing of his connection was Alitalia's fault, and they should at least have the slightes humanity, and re-book him in business class on the night flight, they of course refused, and told him that his only option is to purchase 2 new full fare business class tickets, he then requested to at least be allowed to pay only the difference to be upgrad his economy ticket to business, he was again refused.
My friend (who has it extremely difficult financially) was left with no choice but to pay the sum of around 3000 USD, to buy 2 new full fare Business class ticket, writing complaints to be reimbursed have been unsuccessful.

I have never heared any airline behave like this, I'd be suprised if somebody else has!

That is extremely inexcusable behaviour by AZ. I would start by refuting the charge on your credit card. And keep refuting it no matter what. Second, this mess with AZ is going to take forever to clear up. Go through EUClaims.com if you want to let someone else do all the phone calls and follow-ups. If not, you will be stuck making many many many calls to AZ in the country of their residence. If their residence is in the UK, chances are better for a resolution than going through Italian AZ offices. That would be a nightmare.
I am so sorry for their experience. That is really horrible dis-service.

Of course, your path of recourse and expectations of level of compensation would depend on the reason for the delay.

That is extremely inexcusable behaviour by AZ. I would start by refuting the charge on your credit card. And keep refuting it no matter what.

I really can't see and understand why people do and support this kind of action.
You agree to get a service and then fight to not pay for it... :td::td::td:

I think the story is a bit different (to say the least) from the version we got reported by second hand...

some points:
1) given this was the morning flight I assume it was the 6AM flight out of LHR. Since the plane was already in LHR on night stop, how can we assume the delayed departure was a AZ fault and not related to airport/weather/traffic?
2) TLV connection is very very tight since it would be a scheduled 45 minutes. Given the fact that gate closes at least 15 minutes before departure, it means you think you can connect in less than 30 minutes from terminal B to C (train shuttle ride included). Given that UK is out of Schengen Agreement and TLV flights usually have tighter controls (ie: boarded earlier than others flights), a 45 minutes connection is a bit stretched in the first place.
3) I can't believe under any circumstance that with the LHR flight arriving late, baggages made it to the TLV flight and PAX did not. Sorry but I can't believe it, no matter what.
3b) From an airline perspective is much more worse to offload baggages than opening the gate for the pax.
4) I have never seen an airline (AZ included) refusing a seat on a later flight because of a missed connection due to its own fault, because Y seats weren't available.

I repeat myself: I'm sure there's much more we haven't heard about this story.

some points:
1) given this was the morning flight I assume it was the 6AM flight out of LHR. Since the plane was already in LHR on night stop, how can we assume the delayed departure was a AZ fault and not related to airport/weather/traffic?

I don't know but it's *sure* it was not a passengers' fault. Period.


2) TLV connection is very very tight since it would be a scheduled 45 minutes. Given the fact that gate closes at least 15 minutes before departure, it means you think you can connect in less than 30 minutes from terminal B to C (train shuttle ride included). Given that UK is out of Schengen Agreement and TLV flights usually have tighter controls (ie: boarded earlier than others flights), a 45 minutes connection is a bit stretched in the first place.


If the MCT is respected and you have a single ticket for the whole itinerary, this is a problem that the carrier has to solve, not the passengers. Period.


3) I can't believe under any circumstance that with the LHR flight arriving late, baggages made it to the TLV flight and PAX did not. Sorry but I can't believe it, no matter what.


I agree with this.


3b) From an airline perspective is much more worse to offload baggages than opening the gate for the pax.

Re-agree. But we're talking about AZ, so we could think they don't opt for the best choice....


4) I have never seen an airline (AZ included) refusing a seat on a later flight because of a missed connection due to its own fault, because Y seats weren't available.

I saw it, and it was Alitalia. :( Of course this was until "my lawyer" came into the discussion :D

cheers:D

I really can't see and understand why people do and support this kind of action.
You agree to get a service and then fight to not pay for it... :td::td::td:

I think the story is a bit different (to say the least) from the version we got reported by second hand...

some points:
1) given this was the morning flight I assume it was the 6AM flight out of LHR. Since the plane was already in LHR on night stop, how can we assume the delayed departure was a AZ fault and not related to airport/weather/traffic?
2) TLV connection is very very tight since it would be a scheduled 45 minutes. Given the fact that gate closes at least 15 minutes before departure, it means you think you can connect in less than 30 minutes from terminal B to C (train shuttle ride included). Given that UK is out of Schengen Agreement and TLV flights usually have tighter controls (ie: boarded earlier than others flights), a 45 minutes connection is a bit stretched in the first place.
3) I can't believe under any circumstance that with the LHR flight arriving late, baggages made it to the TLV flight and PAX did not. Sorry but I can't believe it, no matter what.
3b) From an airline perspective is much more worse to offload baggages than opening the gate for the pax.
4) I have never seen an airline (AZ included) refusing a seat on a later flight because of a missed connection due to its own fault, because Y seats weren't available.

I repeat myself: I'm sure there's much more we haven't heard about this story.

1)The plane left LHR late, due o Alitalia closing the gate late, and they were re-assured by the FA that it's their fault.
2)I agree that the connection is tight in the first place, but once again who is tricking passengers not familiar with FCO that is tight, it once again shows Alitalia's unreliable service, and you're right the connection is tight and it's a disgrace of Alitalia to sell such tickets.
3)Of course it's easier just to let the passengers on then rather offload luggage, I agree with you and also don't understand the Alitalia ground staff (which as mentioned in other threads are disgusting).
4)I too have never seen such a airline, although after discussing this with a travel agent he said that in Alitalia's case he isn't suprised at all (he also told me that he recently stopped selling Alitalia tickets because they keep on lying)

It seems to me that you're an Alitalia fan, but it's about time you face reality that they are crap

It seems to me that you're an Alitalia fan, but it's about time you face reality that they are crap

I fly Alitalia pretty much, as I fly with other carrier, most in the ST alliance.
And as a pretty experienced traveller, I know that any airline can be good or bad based solely on personal experience.
What I'm trying to say is that it's too easy to blame everything to the carrier.

I would NEVER book a 45 minutes scheduled connection in an airport I've never been to or I'm not pretty familiar with in the first place. This doesn't mean you can't do it.
That said, the story that baggages did it and pax did not doesn't match at all. Period

Have you taken into consideration that your friend got lost in the airport for whatever reason?
I'm not defending AZ, but I think something is missing here...

Then, according to some researches, morning flights to TLV seem to be way more popular then night flights... (i.e.: lots of open seats in he night).
Maybe your friend was plain unlucky as he got the single day when the typical scenario was twisted

cheers maclover

p.s.: a long time ago AF misconnected me and they refused t put me on the concorde (first flight out of the airport) because I was ticketed in Y.

I really can't see and understand why people do and support this kind of action.
You agree to get a service and then fight to not pay for it... :td::td::td

Go ahead, put all the thumbs down you want. After 5 years in Italy, I know very well that nothing gets done regarding customer service unless you take action on a threat. Period. Any email sent will just get deleted. Any letter sent will just get thrown away. Any phone call made will simply be ignored. They won't ignore a challenge to a charge. Believe me. That's the only way to get anything done in this country. Take action on a "minaccia" and ears will perk up. Use the EU regulations to the full force and extent. Don't stop until you get justice. That's the only way to deal with Italian companies. They don't care otherwise.

Go ahead, put all the thumbs down you want. After 5 years in Italy, I know very well that nothing gets done regarding customer service unless you take action on a threat. Period. Any email sent will just get deleted. Any letter sent will just get thrown away. Any phone call made will simply be ignored. They won't ignore a challenge to a charge. Believe me. That's the only way to get anything done in this country. Take action on a "minaccia" and ears will perk up. Use the EU regulations to the full force and extent. Don't stop until you get justice. That's the only way to deal with Italian companies. They don't care otherwise.

umh .... :confused:
so you telling me that you are used to agree to pay a service and then fight the charge to get it for free
I once had a customer in my store. He agreed to buy a Mac. Then after 10 days he wanted to return it and get money back. As this wasn't an option, he denied the charge on the credit card... Turned out he had to exhibit at a fair here in Italy but since shipping his MacPro over the pond was to much expensive it was a far better solution renting it for free fighting the charge.

Credit cards issuer should defend customers against fraud. And so far this is not the case as the OP friend paid for a J seat to TLV and got there so that expense is more then legit.

umh .... :confused:
so you telling me that you are used to agree to pay a service and then fight the charge to get it for free.

You're speaking nonsense, Maclover. Rubbish. If you sold a defective product, then yes, he has a right to bring it back. If you sold the product without defects, then the purchaser has no recourse. There are consumer purchase laws in every EU country that dictate when/if a merchant is required to provide reimbursement/refund/new product. No one would logically require you to take back a product that had been used, but not defective and for the prescribed reasons you gave, would be fraudulent.

However, when an airline has a contract of carriage and is governed by national and EU laws and regulations, and said airline does not adhere to those laws and regulations and instead forces passengers to pay for something that is NOT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY to pay, then yes, after the transaction, disputing the charge, and beginning a process to recover all funds spent and receiving compensation is a proper route to go.

If I arrive at the airport on-time, with a valid ticket, a legal connection, and all necessary travel documents, then I have done my part. Barring an act of God or force majeure, the airline is responsibile to get me from my origin to destination safely and on time. If either of those conditions are not met, I have a right to recourse for my grievances. Under EU rules, those recourses are spelled out for us. If AZ is selling 45 minute non-Schengen to non-Schengen connections (all non-Schengen flights arrive/leave from Terminal C), while it is doable, it is not recommended. Especially with an online connection from AZ to AZ, this should still be doable and AZ should have never forced them to pay up to get on the next flight.

[Removed offensive and TOS-violating paragraph]

As for believing the OP about the luggage, I've made connections with AZ at FCO less thann 45 minutes and my bags made it. I've also made connections longer than 45 minutes at FCO on AZ and my bags didn't make it. It's a crapshoot. Some days you get lucky. Other days you don't. Rule of thumb, on AZ never check luggage, even if flying nonstop MXP/LIN-FCO.

You don't get the point TravellinHusker.

The second flight he paid for was delivered and he arrived in TLV. Nobody FORCED him to pay for it.
Why can't you take into consideration that OP got lost in the airport and AZ refused to book him into a J seat because it was his fault and was wiling to accomodate him in a Y seat the next day?

I'm not saying AZ was right. I'm saying that something is unclear as we are hearing a second hand story and jumping to conclusions without knowing the whole situation.

This is a 2:30 scheduled flight, while, in reality it usually takes 2 hours block to block.
(as matter of fact this morning flight left on time and arrived 30 minutes earlier)

If you want next time I'm in VCE I'll chime in :)

cheers
maclover

Maclover, I feel you have misunderstood the OP. Pax purchased LHR-FCO-TLV on AZ with a short connection in FCO. Flight left LHR late due to reasons that airline staff said was their fault. Upon arrival at FCO, they went to the gate for TLV and the door was closing as they arrived. (Terminal C is not confusing whatsoever. If they got lost in Terminal C, they need medication.) They were INVOLUNTARILY DENIED BOARDING even though their luggage apparently was on the plane. They had to have ground staff UNLOAD the luggage because they were being denied boarding. FULL STOP. Now, under EU rules, at this point, AZ is required to give them literature explaining their rights. (1. This Regulation establishes, under the conditions specified herein, minimum rights for passengers when: (a) they are denied boarding against their will.. according to Article 4 rule 3. If boarding is denied to passengers against their will, the operating air carrier shall immediately compensate them in accordance with Article 7 and assist them in accordance with Articles 8 and 9.) Now, Article 7 states: Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall receive compensation amounting to EUR 600 for all flights outside of the EU and more than 1500 kms. AND, Article 8 dictates that (b) re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination at the earliest opportunity; or.. (c) re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination at a later date at the passenger's convenience, subject to availability of seats. And finally, Article 10 further stipulates that (1) If an operating air carrier places a passenger in a class higher than that for which the ticket was purchased, it may not request any supplementary payment.

AZ failed miserably. All data can be found here: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32004R0261:EN:HTML

AZ violated the law. They are required to put them on the next plane with seats, regardless of booking class. If they are upgraded, AZ cannot ask them for money. AZ asked them for money. The next available flight with seats was that night. Therefore, they are entitled to those seats. AZ has an option if they don't want to give C class seats to the OP. They can upgrade a Freccia Alata Plus or Freccia Alata member. Heck, even Skyteam Elite+ would work. And then give those Y seats to the OP. Regardless, AZ is wrong in this case and the OP has every right to refute the charges as they are a violation of EU law.

AZ violated the law. They are required to put them on the next plane with seats, regardless of booking class. If they are upgraded, AZ cannot ask them for money. AZ asked them for money.You are adding 2+2 and coming up to 5. The Regulation does NOT say that, where the next flight only has seats available in a higher class of booking, the airline has an obligation to put the pax on that flight. If they choose to do so, then yes, they cannot ask for extra payment. But if they don't, then all that the regulation requires is that the pax is accommodated on an alternative flight under comparable transport conditions at the earliest opportunity.

It may well be that, ultimately, the ECJ will interpret the reg in a way similar to what you suggest. But this is not what the Reg explicitly says and, for the time being, local caselaw in the UK tends to go in the opposite direction to what you suggest (albeit very low level caselaw, it has to be said).

You are adding 2+2 and coming up to 5. The Regulation does NOT say that, where the next flight only has seats available in a higher class of booking, the airline has an obligation to put the pax on that flight. If they choose to do so, then yes, they cannot ask for extra payment. But if they don't, then all that the regulation requires is that the pax is accommodated on an alternative flight under comparable transport conditions at the earliest opportunity.

It may well be that, ultimately, the ECJ will interpret the reg in a way similar to what you suggest. But this is not what the Reg explicitly says and, for the time being, local caselaw in the UK tends to go in the opposite direction to what you suggest (albeit very low level caselaw, it has to be said).

Surely in this case a 12h delay would have to be considered the "earliest opportunity" and not 24h later the following day.
I also think that AZ handled this very poorly. They could have issued Y BPs and upgraded one of their own elites for sure.

You are adding 2+2 and coming up to 5. The Regulation does NOT say that, where the next flight only has seats available in a higher class of booking, the airline has an obligation to put the pax on that flight. If they choose to do so, then yes, they cannot ask for extra payment. But if they don't, then all that the regulation requires is that the pax is accommodated on an alternative flight under comparable transport conditions at the earliest opportunity.

Italian case law is mute on this point. I called an Italian lawyer friend asked him about this. While there are no laws regarding this, there are 2 transport decrees that were drawn up under the Prodi government 2 years ago. They are still in effect and have not been redacted by the Berlusconi government.

The first part states that the airline has to put them on the first flight under comparable transport. That term, comparable transport, is the key. Buying a plane ticket and then being forced on a bus or a train, is not comparable transport. That is basically the take on the decree. It's actually quite complicated in Italian, but makes no mention of class of service. Only that they cannot change the mode of transportation without paying compensation.

The second part of the EU regulation states that in the event of IDB, in respect to seat availability, the PAX can choose to take a flight that is NOT the next flight. It could be 3 days from now.

If the pax lives in the UK, then the pax would be required to file there, however, under Italian rules, AZ still violated the law. They cannot ask pax for money if the next available flight only has C class. Period.

I agree with you.

Italian case law is mute on this point.

Doesn't matter.
The law here is EU Regulation 261/2004.
A EU regulation is binding and directly applicable in all Member States, isn'it?
Indeed, the Italian decree 69/2006 (decreto legislativo) is about, generally speaking, fines to airlines. The other decree is about protection of consumers.

Right to reimbursement or re-routing
1. Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall
be offered the choice between:
(a) — reimbursement within seven days, by the means
provided for in Article 7(3), of the full cost of the ticket
at the price at which it was bought, for the part or
parts of the journey not made, and for the part or parts
already made if the flight is no longer serving any
purpose in relation to the passenger's original travel
plan, together with, when relevant,
— a return flight to the first point of departure, at the
earliest opportunity;
(b) re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their
final destination at the earliest opportunity; or
(c) re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their
final destination at a later date at the passenger's convenience,
subject to availability of seats.
2. Paragraph 1(a) shall also apply to passengers whose
flights form part of a package, except for the right to reimbursement
where such right arises under Directive 90/314/EEC.
3. When, in the case where a town, city or region is served
by several airports, an operating air carrier offers a passenger a
flight to an airport alternative to that for which the booking
was made, the operating air carrier shall bear the cost of transferring
the passenger from that alternative airport either to that
for which the booking was made, or to another close-by destination
agreed with the passenger."

Is a flight operated on the same route, by the same airline, with a similar - if not the same - equipment and crew , a rerouting under 'comparable transport conditions' to final destination? Yes.

Is the next flight on the same day the 'earliest opportunity'? Yes . And we can argue that, generally speaking, an airline shall also rebook on others airlines if they provide an 'opportunity' earlier than its next flight.*

Does class of service matter? Nope, the Regulation doesn't even mention classes of services in any article other than Article 10 "Upgrading and downgrading".

Against the law and the common sense.:td:

* AZ was used to

...omg you're so funny. AF closes doors in front of passengers even if they are 20 minutes earlier than STD during the boarding...but that has to be AZ's fault as well i suppose...

Surely in this case a 12h delay would have to be considered the "earliest opportunity" and not 24h later the following day.
I also think that AZ handled this very poorly. They could have issued Y BPs and upgraded one of their own elites for sure.Clearly, as a matter of customer service, there is no doubt that AZ handled that very poorly.

What I disagree on, though, is on the extent of AZ's legal obligations. There is nothing that explicitly states in the Reg that an airline has to upgrade a pax on the next available service if no seats are available in the original booking class. So it is a matter of interpretation of the Reg. There is currently no ECJ caselaw on the issue. Don't know whether there is any Italian caselaw on it. I know that there is (low level) caselaw on it in the UK and that it tends to support the view that there is no such obligation on the airline. Now, this is low-level jurisdiction from one Member State, and therefore has little precedent value. Nonetheless, it does indicate that issues are not quite as straightforward and clearcut as some seem to assume.
I personally think that the Reg should be interpreted in the way you and TravellinHusker suggests. However, in the current situation, it is excessive to state that AZ has clearly broken the law. Their interpretation of the Reg is not an entirely unreasonable one, even if I disagree with it.

The law here is EU Regulation 261/2004.
A EU regulation is binding and directly applicable in all Member States, isn'it?
Indeed, the Italian decree 69/2006 (decreto legislativo) is about, generally speaking, fines to airlines. The other decree is about protection of consumers.


Alice11, I think we are on the same page, however my comment about the Italian decrees relates to the fact that the EU requires each member state to enforce the regulations. The enforcement takes place through the individual states' passing laws (or in the case of Italy, decrees, as so often is the case). So, while the regulation, even if it is a tad vague, is valid and the law of the land, it is the Italian governing body for civil aviation that is responsible for implementation of the rules. Hence, why the decrees were passed under Prodi. Again, there is no case law in Italy at the moment. Any lawsuit filed in Italy within the past 5 years since the EU regs were passed, simply would not have had the chance to be heard yet. That could take 10 years or more. :td:

I concur with everybody saying that this was a poor customer service by AZ if the story is exactly what we hear (second hand) by OP.

I keep thinking there is more left out of the story.
If the baggage made it to the flight and pax did not, I'm sure there was some other problem.
And maybe when pax arrived at the gate they were already unloading his baggage...

LHR flights arrive at terminal B and you have to connect in terminal C.
Maybe he got lost...
Maybe he got stuck at any security check

What I contest to TravellinHusker and others is to bash AZ without knowing the full story.
Sorry OP, but I'm rather skeptic with second hand stories and not knowing how seasoned a traveller is...

have all a great weekend
maclover

I keep thinking there is more left out of the story.
If the baggage made it to the flight and pax did not, I'm sure there was some other problem.
And maybe when pax arrived at the gate they were already unloading his baggage...It does indeed sound implausible that bags would have made it before pax to the connecting flight if the pax went straight from one flight to another.

Note that LHR flights arrive at C (non-Schengen) so connection is C to C.

It does indeed sound implausible that bags would have made it before pax to the connecting flight if the pax went straight from one flight to another.

Note that LHR flights arrive at C (non-Schengen) so connection is C to C.

I agree, but there could be reasons for that.
Mismanagement of the jetbridges are not unusual, like other similar problems - 'missing' buses and so on, although the OP did not mention that sort of problems.
Because of that, you can just waste the few minutes or seconds you need to get the gate on time.

Furthermore, we should understand how the BHS tracking system works, how many baggage tracking points there're, when and where the bags are tracked, how and when information are retrieved to ground staff at BHS and gates.

I mean, you have pax+bag routed A-B-C.
The pax gets B, go to the boarding gate, but when he/she gets the gate, pax finds the boarding closed.
Boarding closed > pax grounded.


In the meantime, the baggage may have not completed the process plane A > BHS > plane B, but it's considered loaded because it was already on the way (eg, on the truck, or on the loader).

Actually, the baggage is not really IN the plane, but it's considered to be, since there's not 'trigger event' yet that makes the system flagging the baggage as 'not loaded'.

Boarding closed> pax grounded > baggage (formally) loaded > a problem to manage

What is appalling, anyhow, it's how AZ managed the story. No wonders

In a recent judgement, a Newcastle (?) county court judge rulled that a connection missed due to the late arrival of the feeder flight did not amount to being denied boarding in the sense of the EU regulation 281/2004. I believe the argument was that one cannot expect to board an aircraft as easily as jumping on the back of a bus.

The issue of what "comparable conditions of transport" really means has been discussed at length. Having travelled in both Economy and Business, I for one would find it quite hard to agree that those two can be considered "comparable". For the same reason, airlines will also argue that they are under no obligation to arrange a transfer to another carrier. Strictly speaking and as already stated by NickB, it seems that they would therefore be entitled to refuse an upgrade on their next flight and a transfer to a flight operated by another carrier.

Disputing the charge with the credit card issuer would, in my opinion, be a waste of time, since AZ/their bank will be able to produce a copy of a signed sales voucher confirming that the passenger agreed to the transaction.

Whilst I do not doubt a single second the OP's account of the situation, I also find it hard to believe that AZ staff would have openly admited that the delay to the London flight was their responsibility. There could be hundreds of reasons why they had to delay the closure of the flight. One of which could be the traffic congestion LHR is famous for, especially in the morning.

Note that LHR flights arrive at C (non-Schengen) so connection is C to C.

According to FCO website (http://www.adr.it/portal/portal/adr/Shadow/Voli_del_giorno_FCO/volidelgiorno?action=2&conversationId=14792&org.apache.myfaces.portlet.MyFacesGenericPortlet.V IEW_ID=%2Fresults.jsp&conversationIsLongRunning=false) AZ flights from LHR land at terminal B.

That said, scheduled flight time is 2h30m while actually it takes a bit less.
This means that even if a flight departs a bit late it could arrive on time.

I looked 3 weeks back on flightstats and here we go:

Actual: 9:20 AM - Wed Jun 10, 2009
Actual: 9:25 AM - Tue Jun 09, 2009
Actual: 9:20 AM - Mon Jun 08, 2009
Actual: 9:36 AM - Sun Jun 07, 2009
Actual: 9:30 AM - Sat Jun 06, 2009
Actual: 9:20 AM - Fri Jun 05, 2009
Actual: 9:30 AM - Thu Jun 04, 2009
Actual: 9:30 AM - Wed Jun 03, 2009
Actual: 9:20 AM - Tue Jun 02, 2009
Actual: 9:25 AM - Mon Jun 01, 2009
Actual: 9:15 AM - Sun May 31, 2009
Actual: 9:40 AM - Sat May 30, 2009
Actual: 9:15 AM - Fri May 29, 2009
Actual: 9:15 AM - Thu May 28, 2009
Actual: 9:25 AM - Wed May 27, 2009
Actual: 9:40 AM - Tue May 26, 2009
Actual: 9:30 AM - Mon May 25, 2009
Actual: 9:25 AM - Sun May 24, 2009
Actual: 9:20 AM - Sat May 23, 2009

Just 10 minutes late on 2 occasions but mostly it arrived at FCO earlier than expected.
And ... WOW... most of the time it was earlier ;)

Unless flighstats is trying to cover AZ, I definitely think the story we were told is incomplete.

Cheers maclover

AZ flights from LHR land at terminal B.

Now that you say that, I recall that my last 2 flights from LHR to FCO on AZ did not pull up to a jetbridge, but instead at a remote stand halfway between B and C closer to the runway than the terminal building itself. We were bused to a door that was just on the inside of immigrations, so if you were transiting, you had to clear security, then take a right to be in Terminal C. Or, if you were going to a Schengen flight, you went directly ahead where there were just 2 officers stamping passports without even glancing at them and one could proceed directly to Terminal B directly ahead. So, if this is the norm, one could hardly blame the pax for missing a 45 minute connection. I would interested to hear what the pax actually had to do - jetbridge or bus.

According to FCO website (http://www.adr.it/portal/portal/adr/Shadow/Voli_del_giorno_FCO/volidelgiorno?action=2&conversationId=14792&org.apache.myfaces.portlet.MyFacesGenericPortlet.V IEW_ID=%2Fresults.jsp&conversationIsLongRunning=false) AZ flights from LHR land at terminal B.

That said, scheduled flight time is 2h30m while actually it takes a bit less.
This means that even if a flight departs a bit late it could arrive on time.
...
Just 10 minutes late on 2 occasions but mostly it arrived at FCO earlier than expected.
And ... WOW... most of the time it was earlier ;)


Honestly, I think it's an error of the website. All the extra-schengen flights get Terminal C.
I'm a frequent flyer on that route and never got other terminals (see below) - and unfortunately I'm not used to enjoy any ex-LHR flight departing on time, whether AZ or BA, although the schedule is usually longer so from time to time they land on time...

Occasionally, if plane coming from LHR has to operate the next flight on a intra-schengen route, planes go to their areas or gates at B or A, but staff ground people, load them on a bus and the take them to C. That's because there're no customs at A or B.

Same if the plane has operated an intra-schengen flight and is going to operate an extra-schengen route: planes go directly to C, people take the bus to A/B arrivals, avoiding customs

I would interested to hear what the pax actually had to do - jetbridge or bus.
I definitely think he was jetbridged or the drama movie of the bad FA not letting him be the first out of the plane wouldn't be of any interest as bus should wait for everybody to be on board @:-)

Honestly, I think it's an error of the website. All the extra-schengen flights get Terminal C.

So it was definitely a C-C connection if we get he was jet-bridged

I took time to check TLV flights and here is what we get:

Actual: 10:45 AM - Wed Jun 10, 2009 Departed gate 30 min later than scheduled
Actual: 10:53 AM - Tue Jun 09, 2009 Departed gate 38 min later than scheduled
Actual: 10:39 AM - Mon Jun 08, 2009 Departed gate 24 min later than scheduled
Actual: 10:47 AM - Sun Jun 07, 2009 Departed gate 32 min later than scheduled
Actual: 11:25 AM - Sat Jun 06, 2009 Departed gate 70 min later than scheduled
Actual: 10:29 AM - Fri Jun 05, 2009 Departed gate 14 min later than scheduled
Actual: 12:16 PM - Thu Jun 04, 2009 Departed gate 121 min later than scheduled
Actual: 10:29 AM - Wed Jun 03, 2009 Departed gate 14 min later than scheduled
Actual: 10:31 AM - Tue Jun 02, 2009 Departed gate 16 min later than scheduled
Actual: 11:04 AM - Mon Jun 01, 2009 Departed gate 49 min later than scheduled
Actual: 11:00 AM - Sun May 31, 2009 Departed gate 45 min later than scheduled
Actual: 10:30 AM - Sat May 30, 2009 Departed gate 15 min later than scheduled
Actual: 11:00 AM - Fri May 29, 2009 Departed gate 45 min later than scheduled
Actual: 10:47 AM - Thu May 28, 2009 Departed gate 32 min later than scheduled
Actual: 10:24 AM - Wed May 27, 2009 Departed gate 9 min later than scheduled
Actual: 10:25 AM - Tue May 26, 2009 Departed gate 10 min later than scheduled
Actual: 10:46 AM - Mon May 25, 2009 Departed gate 31 min later than scheduled
Actual: 10:24 AM - Sun May 24, 2009 Departed gate 9 min later than scheduled
Actual: 10:42 AM - Sat May 23, 2009 Departed gate 27 min later than scheduled

not a single day it left on time. At least the baggage mystery is solved :D

now the worst scenario would have been on May 26, when LHR arrived at gate 10 minutes later and TLV flight departed only 9 minutes later... 1 minute loss :p

now I'm wondering if this pax arrived at the closed gate with duty free bags ;)

So it was definitely a C-C connection if we get he was jet-bridged
C-C anyway, jet-bridge or cobus


At least the baggage mystery is solved :D

We can argue that after 25 posts, we've spent more time on this case that the AZ customer service would do, after receiving the complaint :D

We can argue that after 25 posts, we've spent more time on this case that the AZ customer service would do, after receiving the complaint :D

You probably right Alice, but to be honest AZ is at least trying to improve its customer service.
I filed a complaint online and after a couple of week I received a phone call from a customers' relation agent willing to get more information about my case.

That said, I just wanted to try to shed some light on this specific matter as I really don't like rants and bashing for free.
When you hear a second hand story there's always something missing in it :)

Now we just have to wait the OP to tell us what really happened...

it's impossible baggages made it. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.it's quite possible though that passenger got lost through the airport as fco is a quite hard one to get the point where one is and where he has to go. bad signs bad indications no information points around and i have to agree with that. But az or other companies are there to make people catch a flight and not to deny boarding like that.deny boarding is a cost for the company so they don't have fun when they decide to do it and it's not even funny getting to face an angry passenger that thinks you suck or you are a ..... because you canceled it from his flight.most of the flights have slots if they miss it compoany has to pay a big fine and wait for atc clearance that can take several hours to come.
It may be az's fault you're arriving late..but that doesn't allow you to have the right of a c/class trip that's the rule you were flying y class.if you were flying c/class then you could have caught that flight in c. There are rules to follow and you cannot break the rules just because you were angry and missed your flight. i suppose if it was DL AF LH and so on to do that you wouldn't have said a word....but since it's az than everyone thinks to have the right to do and say whatever.and that's not how it works. period

After hearing from a close friend of mine, a incident which he had on Alitalia I'm just furious (my emotions are high, I hope i will be able to control myself)


Now we just have to wait the OP to tell us what really happened...

Is anybody surprised the OP haven't reported back with the true story after all the evidences we brought into the discussion?
Maybe he can't control himself as he get easily furious :D
Or he's trying to find the single day in 2009 when FCO-TLV flight left gate on time... I'm sure his friend flew on that day ;)

Otherwise, I think a couple of people owe some apologies to AZ :)

Otherwise, I think a couple of people owe some apologies to AZ :)


Thanks mate ;)

OMG this story just gives me goose pimples - I have visited Italy only once in my life (and swear will never go back again) and though none of the nightmarish scenario happened to me, I just found the whole experience (I visited many different places) not just so welcoming. The customer service in bars, hotels, restaurants, shops, etc. was just callous, indifferent and "makes me not want to go back". I have visited pretty much the whole world and I would rate Italy and Italian companies pretty much at the bottom of the list along with countries like Hungary, etc. They just don't have the customer service aptitude of good companies and good countries. I have never flown Alitalia but I have heard much more bad than good things about them and that will make me stay away from ever having the experience of flying on them. There are world class companies that consistenly make an effort to remain that way and then there are others....I just wonder why these other companies don't go bankrupt soon enough!

Is anybody surprised the OP haven't reported back with the true story after all the evidences we brought into the discussion?
Maybe he can't control himself as he get easily furious :D


The OP clearly stated that this happened to a friend and not to himself and this remark clearly states that he does not have all the details. He probably has only the bad details ... :cool:

... I have visited Italy only once in my life (and swear will never go back again) ...

My friend, it seems like you have trouble adjusting to a local environment. If you expect USA (or Canada) standards of service in Italy, you are on a sure collision track with all service providers there. This is true almost anywhere outside of N. America but is especially true in Mediterranean countries.

Italy is one of the most beautiful and lovely countries in the world and the service you get there is excellent, as long as you learn what they do and what they don't do. I'm sorry for you that based on one trip you have such a prejudice about a whole country. I guess you have never been to Israel ... :D

OMG this story just gives me goose pimples - I have visited Italy only once in my life (and swear will never go back again) and though none of the nightmarish scenario happened to me, I just found the whole experience (I visited many different places) not just so welcoming. The customer service in bars, hotels, restaurants, shops, etc. was just callous, indifferent and "makes me not want to go back". I have visited pretty much the whole world and I would rate Italy and Italian companies pretty much at the bottom of the list along with countries like Hungary, etc. They just don't have the customer service aptitude of good companies and good countries. I have never flown Alitalia but I have heard much more bad than good things about them and that will make me stay away from ever having the experience of flying on them. There are world class companies that consistenly make an effort to remain that way and then there are others....I just wonder why these other companies don't go bankrupt soon enough!

This thread is not about your hate against Italy, it's about ALitalia. And if you never flown Alitalia you should stay out. And by the way : trust me no one in italy is missing you.

This thread is not about your hate against Italy, it's about ALitalia. And if you never flown Alitalia you should stay out. And by the way : trust me no one in italy is missing you.


This time I have to agree 100% on that.

It seems that when somebody gets something wrong with AZ then it is all the company running badly.
The same rule is extended to a full country in a way that can be described naif and ingenu.

Just to summarise: the fake FT transform one experience in THE experience able to describe everything.

But, if I have to apply this same rule to all foreigners then I should think that ALL US citizens act/think/are intelligent... as George W. Bush ??
Or all the French citizens are like their President Sarkozy??
Or all the North Americans do not know anything about the rest of the world because they are commonly considered not so erudite??
Well, every of us will always meet people able to disaffirm concretely these stereotypes.
Travelling is for sure a way to know the world and to see what's the reality.

Let me also add that Italians are usually pretty good in negative marketing...
AZ has changed ownership and is under restructuration like many other companies. 20 years ago was far better than AF...just to remind you...now it is the contrary. And I am not so friend of this new management.
But things change....only stereotypes remain.

As an American businessman having lived in Europe for the past 6 years (5 of them in Italy), I can give you my honest opinion that on a whole, the term "customer service" means nothing to most Italians. They have zero expectations and they receive zero service. So, they just can't be bothered with anything more. Americans or Brits that are used to a higher level of customer service are often taken back by the lack of service they receive while visiting Italy. It is simply a matter of expectations and having ,or not having in this case, those expectations met.

Yes, it is not surprising the OP did not respond with more information. However, what is more interesting to me is that in this particular case, there seem to be more people bashing AZ. What does that say about AZ? If it was SQ that did this, I think we would all be a bit more skeptical, however given the sad state of AZ's reputation, the story as it is told is quite believable and more than likely probable.

I have a difficult time with those that defend airlines against customers, for the most part. There are times when airlines can be in the right, but these are most often due to a customer's own negligence. We pay a good deal of money to be transported by airlines. And when they fail in that task, many defenders of the airlines like to just say, "Oh well, these things happen and you just have to learn to deal with it." I think that kind of attitude is bullsh!t. If you order a burger at McDonald's but they give you a fish sandwich and you are allergic to fish, do you just go ahead and eat the fish sandwich or do you bring it to their attention and demand a burger? If they refuse and tell you, "Sir, I gave you a fish sandwich because that is what you ordered. I am not deaf and can understand you completely. I know what you ordered. So, eat your fish. If you want a burger, I can sell you a burger for €2.", what would you do? This is a €2 burger in relation to a hundreds of euros airplane ticket.

My experience with AZ is a frustrating one. I speak fluent Italian (although with a Venetian accent, so I am told) so I can communicate quite well with Italian AZ employees. At VCE, there are just 5 or 6 real AZ employees and they only work the Ticket Sales counter. We never see them unless someone has to buy a ticket. All check-in staff and gate staff are contract workers. They are friendly enough for the limited contact we have to have. But, if you have to deal with the ticket sales staff because of irregular ops or a cancellation, it's absolutely frustrating. No one is empowered to do anything without picking up a phone and calling someone in a higher position in Rome. This process is long and tedious and there is absolutely no accountability for the decisions made by a faceless person in Rome. The ticket sales staff just shrug their shoulders and say it's not their decision. And when you want to talk to the person who is making the decision, we are told that they don't speak to the public. More frustration.

Rome is a disaster. Many AZ employees, but most are incredibly lazy, indifferent, and unmotivated. They operate like rude robots. Slow, rude, robots. My 2 worst experiences were recently ona flight VCE-FCO with checked bags. We had to wait more than an hour and a half for the bags to arrive. The domestic arrivals hall has more than 10 carousels and more than 5 were being utilised by AZ, however our carousel was broken. Instead of shifting our luggage to another, working carousel, we had to wait for our carousel to be repaired before they sent up the luggage. Several complaints to AZ staff were completely dismissed and we were told we had to wait and to stop asking them about the luggage.

On another flight VCE-FCO-BCN, we arrived about 5 minutes late into FCO, but then there was no bus waiting for our remote stand transfers to the terminal. We waited, and waited, and waited and finally one arrived. We were booked in C class for the connecting flight to BCN. We arrived about 3 minutes before they closed our gate and I specifically asked the gate agent if our checked bags had made the connection. She typed something into her computer, picked up the phone and asked someone if our bags had been put on the plane. She hung up and said "Yes, your bags are on the plane." Surprise, surprise, surprise. When we arrived at BCN. No bags. They arrived the next day. Only 2 excuses for her, blatant lies or incompetence on the job.

For a lost bag in 2005, it took them almost 1 year to pay me. I spent countless hours on the telephone calling, most often no one ever picking the phone up. Finally, I filed in small claims court in my US state. I received a response then. I shouldn't have to go to those lengths. It's ridiculous.

Finally, on board service. Well, usually it's very brusk and inattentive. The food is inedible. It often reminds me of cat food between two wet, old kitchen sponges. The seats are not so comfortable and there is absolutely no benefit to flying C because the lounges are pathetic. Again, I often ask myself why I ever fly them. Well, I have no choice. They are now the only airline between VCE and any domestic Italian destinations I want to fly to. Ok, I can take Ryanair to CIA, but with just 2 flights a day, and CIA is not convenient, FR just isn't an option.

Only 2 excuses for her, blatant lies or incompetence on the job.





mmmm ok....there is no way to check if luggages are on board. Ramp agent is busy with lots of other stuff , it's impossible to check on board among 100 other pieces of luggages and from the computer you are only able to check if the luggages had been registrated. So, i agree she told you a lie and she shouldn't have, she should have told you the truth. No excuses for her.

Only 2 excuses for her, blatant lies or incompetence on the job.

mmmm ok....there is no way to check if luggages are on board. Ramp agent is busy with lots of other stuff , it's impossible to check on board among 100 other pieces of luggages and from the computer you are only able to check if the luggages had been registrated. So, i agree she told you a lie and she shouldn't have, she should have told you the truth. No excuses for her.

I have often wondered who she called. She did have our boarding stubs with the baggage claim numbers on them. She read them over the phone to someone. Paid C class pax with Skyteam Elite+, I thought she was actually doing some customer service. I fear she probably called her best friend working at another gate just to appear to be doing something. (Fa finta.)

I have often wondered who she called. She did have our boarding stubs with the baggage claim numbers on them. She read them over the phone to someone. Paid C class pax with Skyteam Elite+, I thought she was actually doing some customer service. I fear she probably called her best friend working at another gate just to appear to be doing something. (Fa finta.)


maybe " ha fatto finta" , but she might have called baggage movement or ramp agent for real and someone else might have told her a lie....sometimes also things like this can happen...if that's the way it went at least she tried to do something...

What disasters in customer service. Thanks for the warnings. I will avoid flying Alitalia as much as possible, and particularly on connecting flights.

In a recent judgement, a Newcastle (?) county court judge rulled that a connection missed due to the late arrival of the feeder flight did not amount to being denied boarding in the sense of the EU regulation 281/2004. I believe the argument was that one cannot expect to board an aircraft as easily as jumping on the back of a bus.

The issue of what "comparable conditions of transport" really means has been discussed at length. Having travelled in both Economy and Business, I for one would find it quite hard to agree that those two can be considered "comparable". For the same reason, airlines will also argue that they are under no obligation to arrange a transfer to another carrier. Strictly speaking and as already stated by NickB, it seems that they would therefore be entitled to refuse an upgrade on their next flight and a transfer to a flight operated by another carrier.

Disputing the charge with the credit card issuer would, in my opinion, be a waste of time, since AZ/their bank will be able to produce a copy of a signed sales voucher confirming that the passenger agreed to the transaction.

Whilst I do not doubt a single second the OP's account of the situation, I also find it hard to believe that AZ staff would have openly admited that the delay to the London flight was their responsibility. There could be hundreds of reasons why they had to delay the closure of the flight. One of which could be the traffic congestion LHR is famous for, especially in the morning.

Could it have been Wandsworth rather than Newcastle County Court and wasnt it also a case involving an Italian carrier as defendant? (Being so close to Clapham perhaps omnibus analogy is favored by the locals in South London).

Hasnt the German Supreme Court recently ( and repeatedly) been handing down judgments in respect of a delayed feeder flight not "causing" a denied boarding of a connecting flight?
(For German readers the latest press release from the German Supreme court can be found here http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=pm&Datum=2009&Sort=3&nr=48125&anz=119&pos=1&Blank=1 )

With all respect to District Judges in the UK these German pronoucements might be found more weighty. The German Supreme Court also found that the matter was so unambigious that it didnt warrant reference to the ECJ. (Though note the pre-conditions to the judgments-the carrier must be the same for feeder and connecting flight and it must be part of the same contract of carriage).

Its quite possible that an Italian court hasnt got round to looking at similar circumstances. Maybe Italian courts of whatever tier dont have such good press offices.

If it wasnt denied boarding for EC 261/2004-then Art 8 wouldnt come into play-because it wasnt denied boarding for the purposes of EC 261/2004.

Absent EC 261/2004 there might still be Convention based possible remedies for delay I suppose and of course reference to the entire contractual position with the carrier.

Now are AZ's staff au fait with the most ongoing and very recent jurisprudence euro-wide on EC 261/2004 or do they just have a natural feel for these things? An addition point perhaps could be made was that if it was a denied boarding for the purposes for Ec 261/2004 they would have needed to supply notice of rights at the least.

This all leaves aside the analysis of the passenger of whether he/she has been treated in a manner that he/she feels she should have been treated by the carrier-but that might be distinct to a strict legal analysis. This would be more a view of his/her position as a "customer patron".

I saw before that reference could be made to "EU Claim" and they would engage in a telephone marathon on behalf of the passenger. I was curious on the precise form of retainer that would be involved for that company to conduct a telephone marathon on behalf of the passenger.

Would it first not be logical to apply the precise facts to the operable law and indicate to the passenger on what precise basis and precisely what outcome they were seeking to advance as agent of that passenger? I thought that was the traditional way of doing things-maybe I'm just old-fashioned.

Alternatively isnt all that is involved is a generalised and speculative (perceived?) grievance "shopping trip"?

What disasters in customer service. Thanks for the warnings. I will avoid flying Alitalia as much as possible, and particularly on connecting flights.

if you had taken time to read through the thread, you would have noticed that OP was told a non-complete story...

I have never heared any airline behave like this, I'd be suprised if somebody else has!

I'd say that your friend learned the hard lessons of flying. If you absolutely have to be there, then make sure that you leave a good amount of layover for your connection. Especially when leaving from very congested airports, a three hour connection would be a minimum.

I'm sorry what your friend went through, but it certainly not unique to Alitalia.

I flew Alitalia just once. I was shocked by the dreadful customer service, utter refusal to take responsibility for anything, and what I think was a last minute cancellation of the flight due to low loads without any compensation. I won't recount the whole story, but we finished up out $1,200 and 24 hours.

After that I paid more to fly on other airlines. Maybe I was just unlucky, but I have no trouble believing the OP. I've never formed an impression remotely that bad of any other airline.

After hearing from a close friend of mine, a incident which he had on Alitalia I'm just furious (my emotions are high, I hope i will be able to control myself)

My friend and his was were flying LHR-TLV via FCO.
Their flight from LHR to FCO, departed slightly late, and there connection was becoming tight, they approached the chief FA, and requested to be let off the plane first after landing, as they have a connection wich is tight. The FA reassured them that it isn't necessary, as the the connection is tight due to their fault of the aircraft arriving FCO late, the TLV bound flight will wait for them.
Upon arriving at the connecting gate, it was closed in their face and they were denied boarding, although their luggage had been loaded already (and it took much longer to locate their luggage, than it would have taken to let them board).
Requesting to be booked on the next flight wich was due to depart that evening (12 hours later), they were refused as only business class was available, and were told that they would have to wait untill the next day to get a seat in economy class.
My friend which could in no way wait untill the next day, started pleading that the missing of his connection was Alitalia's fault, and they should at least have the slightes humanity, and re-book him in business class on the night flight, they of course refused, and told him that his only option is to purchase 2 new full fare business class tickets, he then requested to at least be allowed to pay only the difference to be upgrad his economy ticket to business, he was again refused.
My friend (who has it extremely difficult financially) was left with no choice but to pay the sum of around 3000 USD, to buy 2 new full fare Business class ticket, writing complaints to be reimbursed have been unsuccessful.

I have never heared any airline behave like this, I'd be suprised if somebody else has!

Please avoid AZ, it's an airline that for decades now has shown no respect for customers.

I do not want to be the devil's advocate but this thread stinks and should be CLOSED...or maybe renamed "list of bad histories and jokes on AZ flights".

There are few auto-proclamed experts that seem to have understood everything about Italy, Italians, Alitalia... now please stop as nobody needs this kind of self-proclaimed truth.:td:
In fact it appears to me they didn't understand really anything on the above topics and simply put altogether a collection of stereotypes which only the worst tourist guide can offer.:td::td:

If somebody flew 10 years ago AZ then it is JUST his souvenir and has NOTHING to do with the current accidents incurred by the friend of first poster.


I am sure the passenger will get some money back or even a voucher from AZ... if he's right: it happened to me twice WITHOUT any legal letter and this didn't happen NEVER with the other European airlines (I do not write about north-american airlines because it is even worse...). So do not mind...right complains will be answered even if it may takes time.

Please, everyone, stay on topic.........there are other sections and forums altogether for randomly bashing on people, countries, and carriers. And before starting to sound like an AZ defender, let me state i am Italian and fully agree on any and all criticism against our customer service level, we just don't possess that concept in the country imho.

That said, i just wanted to state that in this specific case Alitalia did not break any law (at least judging from what we know from the post) and was not forced to upgrade the pax. I fully agree they should have, but they didn't have to. Imho the pax shouldn't have bought the other ticket, as this notoriously complicates a lot any subsequent refund process and paperwork; i still believe he should try to get that money refunded, but he should not, not, not, under any circumstance, dispute the charge with the CC.

That will only backfire on him, since the charge itself will be perfectly legit and AZ will have an easy time proving that. So don't chargeback, just look for a refund. I'd say you have roughly a 25%/30% chance of getting back at least the fare difference.

Finally, to clear the upgrade issue...no, they didn't have to upgrade the pax. What they have to do, is put the pax on the first Y seat available. Upgrading the pax is something they can do (and common courtesy says they should), but are in no way obliged to. And when the pax bought a J ticket, he signed a completely different contract, which is in no way tied to the previous one. (Hence the mistake, and why i don't think he should've done that). The AZ agent was wrong in suggesting that as an "alternative option", as the two things are completely different and separate issues. The agent should've said something along the lines of "If you really have to get there tonight, buy a J ticket for that other plane, and we'll sort the refund for this one later".

If you rent a city car and when you show up the car itself isn't there, and there are no others available, you can expect a hell of a refund, and damages in a lot of countries. What you can't do, is go out, rent a Ferrari or a helicopter because "you have to get there", and expect money expenditures and refunds to even out.