FFlash

I agree on this. But my point is that the whole law is maldesigned in the fact that the conditions are madesigned. I understand the carrier point of view too, where someone who has bought a cheapo ticket can get double or more back in a situation which is totally unfair for the carrier. At the same time you can have a domestic ticket from HEL for almost 1000€ and you get nothing.
IMO there should be more penalty responsibility on carrier where a flight is operated from home base in where there are alternatives. Example, do you choose a train/bus between HEL-VAA or a flight - if you need a quick day meeting turnaround. Compare that with an obscure longhaul destination with no/little alternatives - here a buyer should have much more responsibility to build flexibility in his schedule and afford some delay. It is much easier to switch airplane in HEL.
The minimum compensations for shorthauls should therefore be raised substantially and they should be linked to the price paid and competitive carrier options. Not easy to determine of course I understand that, but something in that direction.
Now, they are simply refusing everything for the fact that the whole law is maldesigned and allows all kind of cheapo freeriders to boust about "I earned on this trip!" while others are being felt badly cheated by the system.

If I buy a 69€ ticket, I simply cannot expect to get say 250€ in return. It just doesn't fit my understanding of justice. Nor does Finnish law about compensation for damage (vahingonkorvauslaki) imply that you should be compensated more than your direct damage. Just my cuppa tea, everbody has right to their opinion

intuition

Yes, I see the point in your reasoning, but I also see some large trouble with adding price structure into it. Let's say that the price of ticket is the limit of the penalty. Turn it around and look at how an airline would use such law:

"We sold a lot of 69€ tickets, but too little of the higher priced ones. Well, only 5€ is our fare, so all we risk is to pay 5€ penalty each. Let's go ahead and cancel that one."

Airlines have themselves entered into these odd pricing principles. They sell tickets with the same ticket rules but at different prices, often way below margin cost. Why should they be able to cancel the cheapest ticket at a nominal fee? Then you open for "No guarantees" fares. "At 69€ you can fly to BKK and back, unless something happens because then we won't fly you back". Sadly, consumers are not able to properly judge risks, and a lot of people would buy such a fare and eventually be left behind, and the state would have to bail them out.


If you don't keep the total cost of cancelling or severly delaying flights very high, the drive to replace flights with bus or just plainly cancel them to save money is too strong.


One idea I just got - too far fetched to ever be implemented - is to give the power to the consumer. In case of cancelled/delayed/re-routed under certain circumstances, and the original airline refuses to handle the situation according law, then the consumer is free to book with a competitor, and competitor has support in law to charge trip to original airline.

You'd see a compeltely different approach from original airline, faster than you can say "EU261".

Lappe

I believe the whole fundamental idea behind introducing these fixed compensation amounts was to simplify the claims - based on a few factors the airline is obliged to pay a fixed compensation for the inconvenience caused. It is not a penalty or compensation for actual damages.

How does the inconvenience or damage increase with the price originally paid? If the ticket becomes unneeded the carrier will return you back to origin and refund the price paid.

Why not? The 250€-600€ would be for the inconvenience caused, not direct damages. And lucky that it is not - proving actual damages would be difficult in most cases. I'd guess that any principles of law would find it more remote that the damages (outside loss of use) would increase based on initial price paid or alternative options available for transport from the original point of departure.

On another note: the re-routing is really allowed with any reasonable means of transportation - planes, trains and automobiles (and flying monkeys)!

panxta

This is the best news since forever. Welcome to FT. If you didn´t manage to cover the all the legal fees, please share bank account number with PM so I can participate to this act of bravery which I didn´t have .... to do myself.

FFlash

I wonder how OH-LTT is doing as it was diverted yesterday (engine?) and what pax were offered on AY041.

intuition

Haven't seen anything in the news. Maybe OH-LGG knows?

LTT aborted climb out of HEL, levelled of and burned fuel above Vessölandet for an hour before returning. Still on the ground.

remymartin

And today an aircraft crashed into a catering vehicle.

nanyang

...my opinion is that this "EC261" is an entirely unnecessary cost to airlines.

For a lot of folks it appears to be a nice windfall profit and I see many people acting in bad faith.

People could choose to get insurance or choose another vendor?

Courmisch

The alternative to not having rules would involve unlimited liability on the airlines to deliver the customer as promised. In practice, that means cluttering the civil courts with small claims. This is desirable for nobody, not the airlines, not the customers, and definitely not the authorities.

Keep in mind that this is not only about monetary compensation. And it also has goodies for airlines, such as the right to advance the flight departure, delay the flight arrival, or reroute the customers within certain limits.

You will always have people who get more money than they should and people who will get less money that they should. That is unavoidable with simplified rules. This is still better than going to civil court for every single inconvenienced customer.

You can always do that if the minimum EC warranties are not enough for you.

intuition

Of course. But airlines can chose not to fly to those destinations that inflicts them such costs or get insurance to cover the costs. So EC261/2004 is nothing forced on vendors. They choose to operate in a certain market, and will have to play by the rules in that market.


I know that there is an international trend that all consumer protection is evil, and consumers can always "get insurance or choose another vendor" I find it bizarre.

I did a quick research what kind of insurance that is available. I find that maximum payout in case of delay 8h+ is 110€. I cannot find any insurance that will cover any of the basic needs a consumer has during a severe delay. There is no way consumers can force a decent behaviour from a large cooperation by walking out on them or protect themselves from the consequences with insurance.

IanFromHKG

I was very interested to find this thread as I have been claiming compensation for my 15-year-old daughter who was overnighted in Helsinki on a connecting flight due to an A350 fault which, surprise surprise, Finnair are claiming is "extraordinary circumstances" on the basis it is a new plane and therefore must have been a manufacturing defect. I have quoted the various cases at them and taken the same approach as the claimant above, that this only works if it is acknowledged as a manufacturing defect or by the civil aviation regulator. They have offered me EUR200 in vouchers (against a claim of EUR600), which I have declined, and after some correspondence I yesterday issued a Letter Before Action (make a satisfactory offer in 7 days or I sue). Fortunately, Hong Kong (the origin, and where I bought the ticket) has a Small Claims Tribunal, so the cost to me of starting the case is minimal. Fingers crossed...!

heatsink

Am I understanding correctly that you want a Hong Kong court to enforce EC261? That doesn't sound like it'll work unless the ticket itself includes those terms...

WilcoRoger

My thoughts, too. EC261 is not a HK law, so I guess it'll be thrown out there. If your daughter's origin/destination was in another EU country, there might be a small claims court there that might handle the case - or go after AY in Finland.

IanFromHKG

Courts apply foreign laws all the time, believe it or not.

In any case, Finnair have this statement on their website, committing to EC261 rights. I would argue that by making those promises, they form part of my contract which, interestingly, doesn't specify a governing law (at least their Conditions of Carriage don't).