Tartegnin

I was in Madrid a couple of weeks ago during the general strike which took place on the date of my return to GVA. Although news reports stated that 80-90% of short haul flights would be cancelled, Swiss didn't announce the formal cancellation of its GVA flight until a bit late in the day. Still, I thought I was in reasonable hands, especially when I got an SMS notice the day before advising me that the flight was cancelled and that I would be advised shortly about rebooking. As I was in meetings all day, I didn't think much about it until later in the day, but I had not heard anything back. I got in touch with our company travel agent who was completely unaware of the whole thing and finally let me know that he had managed to book me on a connection a day later via Dusseldorf (with a short connection) arriving in the evening (i.e., about 36 hours after my scheduled arrival). He advised me that all the direct flights on Swiss were booked and waitlisted. I called the SEN line to see if they could do something for me, but they said no, and the reason was that I was flying Swiss and not LH (???) I called back the travel agent who agreed to put me on the waitlist for the morning nonstop and also advised me that he managed to find one business seat on the morning Iberia flight, but that I would have to pay. I kept in touch and the best I could get was that I had moved from 23 to 1 on the waitlist, but it never did clear. So, in the end, I took the Iberia flight, which cost about 900CHF, to avoid spending an entire extra day in Madrid (on top of the extra night hotel cost).

So, I am a bit confused about why Swiss would SMS me suggesting that they would give me more info later and never did, and also why the Senator line couldn't help me rebook (I though that was the advantage of all those miles!). It was a lot of hassle and, in the end, extra costs. Since Swiss had, I believe, three nonstops to GVA the day after the strike, I am annoyed that the best that could be done was a tense transfer in Dusseldorf (which I also had the risk of missing, thereby perhaps spending an extra night away). It was bad enough to be stuck an extra unplanned night (which caused all sorts of logistical headaches at work and at home), without worrying about how to get back the next day. I'm not blaming Swiss for the cancellation (due to the strike, after all), but how it and M&M handled accommodating me on alternative passage.

Any thoughts, or am I way out of bounds on this one?

Centipede100

The process in events such as these (cancellation and re-route) is covered by Regulation 261/2004: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...4R0261:EN:HTML

Not saying that the travel agent would have handled it any differently but you are entitled to be re-routed on the first available Swiss flight to your destination and fed, watered and accommodated until that re-route departs at no cost to you (but sometimes you will need to pay and claim the reimbursements from the airline).

If you take the matter out of the airline's hands and rebook on another airline then you have not given them the opportunity to offer an acceptable re-route to you and everything thereafter is at your risk & expense.

Cannot answer your query why Swiss didn't text you again but in cases of irrops it is best to be proactive as there would be many in the same situation as you chasing fewer and fewer alternative seats.

swiss_global

That's unfortunately standard procedure. If you get the LH SEN hotline (because you're calling from a country in which LH operates the SEN hotline), there's nothing they can do about LX (and vice versa). This is really frustrating, after 7 years of integration of the two airlines ...

RTW1

What integration..... They share the same FFP, and that's about it....

swiss_global

Well, you're right, RTW1!

hugolover

Entitlement to be re-routed on the first available original carriers flight is a debatable point. I'd say the first available flight of any carrier and IIRC the new amendments to 261/2004 will make that more clear.

Centipede100

Whilst I agree in principle with you, hugolover, there is no precedent case law yet on the question of whether it should be the original carrier or any carrier flying between the passenger's origin and destination airports. The airlines will clearly take the position (in most cases) that it should be on their metal but the Regulation leaves a certain ambiguity on this question by only stating:

(b) re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination at the earliest opportunity;

Since the Regulation doesn't specify what carrier (or indeed another transport method if that is pragmatic in the circumstances) one could argue that any carrier or method could be used. The European Commission provided guidance at the time of the Volcanic Ash incident that stated that passengers could be re-routed via other methods, that however is not yet definitive law on the subject, but as you say any future review of the Regulation by the European Institutions may impact on this.

wcalvert

Just wondering if a company is liable for hotel/food for passengers stranded in the event of a strike. Maybe just C and F passengers as a gesture of good will?

Egor

Regulation 261/2004 applies for delay/cancellation for any reason whatsoever in the part of providing accomodations