letsflyletsflyaway

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21767040

New rights for airline passengers have been unveiled by the European Commission. They include rerouting travellers with rival carriers if a flight is delayed for more than 12 hours. The rules also clarify what are considered exceptional circumstances for compensation.

For example, mechanical failures on board the aircraft do not count, but natural disasters and traffic control strikes do. The Commission says the new rules, which are not likely to become law until 2014, will give a lot more certainty to airlines and passengers.

"It is very important that passenger rights do not just exist on paper," said EU transport commissioner Siim Kallas.

"We all need to be able to rely on them when it matters most - when things go wrong."

He added: "We know that the real priority for stranded passengers is just to get home. So our focus is on information, care and effective rerouting."

During the Icelandic ash cloud crisis in 2010, when no flights could take off in Europe for several days, there was much confusion about how much responsibility the airlines should carry for the welfare of its passengers.

'Frustrated' passengers
Under the measures, airlines will have to pay for a maximum of three nights' hotel accommodation - although this does not apply to passengers with reduced mobility, unaccompanied children or pregnant women. The Commission also wants complaints to be dealt with more promptly. "The main problem for passengers is that, while they have very strong passenger rights defined under EU law, they can have difficulty claiming them and feel frustrated when air carriers do not appear to apply them," it said in a statement explaining the rules.

It wants to make it a requirement for airlines to acknowledge receipt of a complaint within a week and provide a formal reply within two months. A survey carried out in Denmark showed that just 2-4% of passengers entitled to financial compensation received it. And if a plane is boarded and sits on the tarmac for more than five hours, passengers now have the right to demand to be let off. If the tarmac delay is more than an hour, the airline must provide air conditioning, use of toilets and water. Carriers may no longer charge for correcting misspelt names on tickets. Musicians must be allowed to bring smaller instruments into the cabin, while there must be clear terms and conditions for transporting larger instruments in the cargo hold.

Other changes include:
Financial compensation to be triggered after a minimum five-hour delay (currently stands at three) on any flight within the EU or international flight shorter than 3,500kms. For longer international flights, compensation will be due after a delay of nine hours up to 6,000km and after 12 hours for longer journeys. Airlines will also be required to inform passengers about delays and provide an explanation no later than 30 minutes after the scheduled departure time. The proposals are subject to approval by member states and the European Parliament.

windowontheAside

That's interesting. I hadn't expected to see the minimum times being increased.

V10

With such significant hikes in the amount of delay allowed before compensation payments are triggered (particularly for longer journeys), I can't help but think that this is poor news for passengers.

Tobias-UK

Indeed, but the proposed new minimum time appears reasonable and much fairer in the grand scheme of things.

Good to see the 'no charge' for changing misspelt names too.

highpeaklad

But not if the airlines are more likely to pay out given the better and more precise terms.

uk1

Actually, the increase in times - although poor news for passengers - does seem a more appropriate period before compensation locks in. In the end all passengers pay for compensation and 3 hours is inconvenient but seems a bit short for compo. We all want the right compromise between compo fairness and lower fares.^

The extra specific exceptional circumstances clarity will remove some misunderstandings ..^

johnnie69

"They include rerouting travellers with rival carriers"

nux

I think passengers have the right to demand to be let off the plane at any time. Whether they are actually let off is another thing entirely..

MNManInKen

It's sensible that the delays before compensation is triggered are being extended, this will help in addressing an emerging compensation culture. It also suggests the economic impact of it had to be rebalanced.

The name correction measure was long overdue and just common sense really.

I still think travel insurance is fundamentally a better approach, but it's overall an improvement on the past situation.

Jenbel

From the Guardian:

That could be a game changer in so many ways

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2013...ights-eu-boost

MNManInKen

But presumably airlines would simply add a condition that under those circumstances the ticket would be repriced accordingly?

Captain Schmidt

A bit disappointing that there is no attempt to clean-up pricing such that carrier imposed fees (i.e YQ) are rolled into the ticket price.

LHR-HUB

It seems to me that the changes are, overall, good.
The longer delay before compo cuts in is the right thing, IMO. If it becomes too "one sided" ticket prices will just rise accordingly to cover the risk.
Tarmac delays were a much needed addition.^

I'd like to see some clause depending on length of journey, eg. If I am ticketed to Paris for the day (out am, return evening), and my outbound is delayed for a length of time less than the compo limit (e.g.. 4 hours), but "common sense" can see it makes the day worthless, I should be able to leave the A/C and claim a full refund. Obviously, the 'common sense" aspect is what kills this, but some formula could be worked out (e.g.., if the "useable time" in Paris is reduced by x% of the planned time). NB. I wouldn't be seeking compensation for this, just the right to cancel if a delay made my trip pointless. (This only happened to me once, and not in EU, so it's a bit moot).

Otherwise, changes for the good - at least the clarification aspect. ^
(Although, I'm confused about liability. The piece mentions a Ryanair case whereby they were forced to pay hotel costs during the ash-cloud saga, so is the ash-cloud not a "natural disaster"?) - probably a case of poor journalism rather than poorly worded EU document

uk1

It isn't as black or white imho.

The contract term in the UK may be tested under the unfair contract terms provisions.

It would seem (on the face of it) that a clause which makes a one way ride become by a retrospective charge more than the cost of a two way ride (for unforseen circumstances ) to be clearly unfair. It may be construed also as a summary fine/penalty rather than a reasonable charge for extra costs incurred. When an airline has to defend this type of charge they would have to show that they minimised exposure. There are no extra costs incurred .... and lost revenue isn't one because they already "over book" to iron out non-shows.

There is a lot yet to be tested that has not been tested in the UK! There is also a credit card potential wrinkle with this type of charge - yet to be fully questioned. Personally I think that this change to the regs advertises and heralds a lack of tolerance to the generic restrictive charge.

We will see .....

Tobias-UK

There is much more meat on the bone here:

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-203_en.htm