inpd

Just seeing all these 261 questions got me thinking.

How on earth do the airlines make money? The standard joke is "How do you make a $1M" Answer: "Run an airline and start with $5M" so its not a high profit (per flight) business.

Consider the best case (for the airline). A smaller B737 doing short haul that seats 150 and if each is compensated 250 Euro that's close to $40K compensation in the best case. Larger long haul planes could easily top $150K compensation.

If just 2% of your flights are delayed then that's going to be Millions of dollars in compensation per month. Bound to hurt their bottom line quite a bit.

Yoshi212

It will hurt the bottom line. That's kind of the point. Keep your planes running and your systems functioning to avoid having to pay out. There is a lot of wiggle room on reasons not to pay out for the unexpected and in some ways I feel it can be punitive when things just go south but the EU is heavy on consumer protections.

Ditto

You're assuming wrongly that all 150 PAX on board go and claim compensation, and that the airline will immediately pay all of them, but that is not the case:

1. Some PAX are unaware of their rights, or couldn't be bothered to claim
2. Some PAX connecting to other flights will still reach their final destination in time
3. Some airlines will initially refuse to pay, and some PAX will just stop after getting the airline response

AceReport

It is however a very anti-business law, also the fact that only EU airlines are subject to it on flights to the EU doubles down on that. Of course since more than a few international EU airlines get national subsidies, but I digress. As Ditto says above, Points 1 and 2 will make up the majority of folks flying on delayed planes. I'm personally in it with UA over the connecting USA only flight being cancelled. So case 3 is a real one as well. End of the day if more people take advantage of it then all of the ticket prices will rise on EU flights in order to deal with it in this high expense, relatively low profit industry.

Tafflyer

Consumer protection is not anti business. Airlines were given the oportunity to be fair before EU261 was introduced and they blew it. By all accounts, the US may also soon enact something similar, so at least non-EU airlines leaving the US will also be covered by some kind of consumer protection. And, looking at some airlines' recently published results, some of the EU airlines are doing very nicely despite EU261.

inpd

My experience is limited. But when-ever my plane has been delayed more than 3 hours I've been emailed by the carriers spelling out my rights and compensation options.

So how can 1. be true?

Ditto

And do you know for a fact that all other PAX on your flight received the same? And bothered reading it/claiming etc?

schrodingerdog

Less than 10% of passengers claim compensation, especially in short-haul holiday routes. In my workplace (40 people) I was the only person aware of EU261 reg. Everytime someone has a delay / cancellation I remember them to claim for the money. Still 50% of them could not be bother to do it.

IAN-UK

My experience is also limited. But never been e-mailed by the carrier. Ever.

The power of anecdotal evidence!!!

Ditto

The carriers in question must make sure you are aware of your rights, however there is nothing in the regulation to say how they should inform you, most carriers would not be as proactive as e-mailing, but rather hide it in plain sight during check-in/signs at the gate etc.

Tafflyer

No, however for a recent delayed flight of mine booked through expedia I did get a mail from them with a link to an EU261 collection agency.

As long as the national EU261 enforcement agencies are either passive or toothless on this, airlines will not change. Everybody will have to claim their own compensation. I have noticed that airlines pay with less hassle these days though, especially when you write your request in such as a way to indicate you know your entitlement.

Often1

As it was originally conceived before it was butchered by the ECJ -- which is composed of judges who know nothing about commercial aviation or apparently mechnics -- this was intended to make carriers maintain reasonable schedules and to keep their aircraft in proper flying condition. This, cancellation (delay) compensation would be payable unless there was an "extraordinary circumstance." Fair enough.

But, the ECJ has made it essentially impossible for an air carrier, no matter how well it maintains its aircraft, to claim an "extraordinary circumstance." That is contrary to the stated intent of the Regulation and is hardly consumer friendly.

Switzerland is not a Member State, but has adopted the Regulation into its national law. Swiss courts have wisely not adopted the ECJ silliness and the Regulation is applied in a common-sense manner.

A study completed last year suggests that less than 10% of eligible passengers claim compensation and that less than 2% of the total eligible amount is actually paid out.

If the costs of EC 261/2004 were increased 50-fold, e.g., that 100% of eligible claims were made and paid, the cost to carriers would be exorbitant and fares would dramatically rise. Moreover, because EU carriers are required to pay compensation for flights to and from the EU, while non-EU carriers pay only on departure from the EU, EU carriers would be at a substantial economic disadvantage.

If the ultimate goal of the Regulation was to cause carriers to operate according to their published schedules, after 13 years, there is no evidence that flights covered by the Regulation operate in a more timely manner than those which are not. US, Canadian & Japanese carriers operate roughly at the same on-time percentage as EU carriers.

1353513636

Japan is a bad example for comparison. Punctuality is very important in Japanese culture and if planes were routinely late, the financial hit to the airline would be worse than if Japan had enacted EU261/2004. When I flew NH HND-OKA and the flight was 10 mins late due to air traffic congestion, they apologized at least 4 times.

I don't think you've flown much on United and Air Canada to claim that they operate at roughly the same on time percentage as EU carriers.

From my experience, the best part about EU 261/2004 is that carriers will do everything in their power to get you to your final destination within 3 hours of original departure time, even if that means putting you on other competitors, which is a good thing.

Often1

Facts, not social commentary about Japan's societal norms. Do you have data to back up your UA concerns?

Take a look at the DOT statistics and you will see that despite the whining on FT, UA, AA & DL have pretty good on-time records. Certainly excellent for the 3-hour trigger under EC 261/2004 and even better for the 4-hour for Type 3 flights.

As more and more passengers are finding, there is a growing reluctance by EU carriers to interline their delayed passengers onto other carriers and, the larger problem is that once the deadline has passed for a Type 1,2, or 3 flight, there is less than no incentive to do anything for a stranded passenger. That is why an EU carrier will always help a passenger at 2-1/2 hours before one at 5 hours.