Originally Posted by
NickB
And how exactly do you propose to do that?
First of all, I'm neither an MP/MEP nor a legal expert.
Originally Posted by
NickB
Multilateral treaties like the Montreal Convention need to be agreed by a multitude of states and, as a result, have a tendency to hover towards the lowest common denominator. So, you have to operate outside that framework and the room for manoeuvre is rather limited, as the litigation started by IATA on the validity of Reg 261/2004 shows.
Fine, but that's all fairly irrelevant with regard to my 2 points: (1) that EU 261/2004 has defined a regime that I do not believe appropriate in as far as it creates a regime whereby people end up being given money (which we all in the end pay for) in circumstances where this is not really warranted in my personal view; and (2) that in interpreting the legislation, the EU Court is not merely clarifying the legislation, but is in effect rewriting it into a different piece of legislation.
I don't work for an airline, and have no particular other links/affinities with them, but I can certainly see why they are resisting this kind of thing.
Originally Posted by
NickB
Yes, we pay for it. Data provided by the airlines (and therefore more likely to over- rather than under-estimate compliance costs) around the time Reg 261/2004 was adopted suggest that somewhere between 10p and 50p for every £100 you spend on a ticket can be attributed to Reg 261/2004 compliance costs. So, yes, we pay, but not a heck of a lot.
When Nick Robinson did his programme on politics a while ago, he pointed out that one of the problems with legislation is that when it is introduced it might very well cost little (or seem to cost little), but that an awful lot of it over time ends up costing a fortune. I don't think any of us here (we're not experts nor soothsayers) can know for sure what this will end up costing, but since its scope is also being widened by the Court, I would not be surprised if in the end it'll end up costing a lot of money, money that with regard to compensation I can't see being even justified in many cases.
Originally Posted by
NickB
Moreover, it also probably notionally result in a lowering of travel insurance premiums so the net cost to the consumer of compliance with the Reg is probably even lower.
But surely, travel insurance is the instrument that should be used to deal with this kind of stuff in the first place, instead of some blanket regime of handing out money! I seriously doubt that travel insurance will get cheaper as a result of this legislation, I certainly can't find any evidence of that whatsoever. The insurance industry also has some issues to deal with and the balance of power there is also not particularly in favour of the consumer. I would have preferred legislation to tackle those issues and to make travel insurance overall better for consumers.
Originally Posted by
NickB
That's the thing, you see: you take a status quo that is reflective of the balance of power between airlines and passengers as a state of nature rather than the consequence of human decisions and choices: yes, stuff happens. And when stuff happens, this has a cost. The question is: who is going to bear that cost?
Well, that's obviously
not what I said. In fact, I made the point that I thought the balance of power was
not right. However, I think this particular remedy is worse than the disease.
Originally Posted by
NickB
There is no law of nature that says that, in a contract between an airline and a passenger, the risk should always be borne by the passenger. The fact that the risk is primarily shifted onto the passenger rather than the airline reflects the imbalance in bargaining power between airlines and consumers: the airline tells you, the passenger, what the contract is. If you don't like it, tough. Unsurprisingly, the airlines tend to write contracts which are in their own interests and therefore tend to shift risks onto consumers.
Again, I did not say anything
remotely like this.
I can speak for myself, please do not put words in my mouth I did not speak. My post stated clearly that I thought the balance was wrong. I simply do not think this "solution" is the right one.
Originally Posted by
NickB
So, when you say that "you see no justification whatsoever for compensation" , what you are in effect saying is that you see no reason why all the risk should not be borne by the passenger and none by the airline.
I personally do not see any a priori reason why risks should be shifted onto the passenger. There is a choice to be made here as to how the risks are allocated. There is a wide range of arguments that one can make for one system or another or for different mixes of allocation of risk but allocating a priori all risks to one side rather than another merely by referring to tired clichés of the "compensation culture" ilk looks to me like grossly over-simplifying the issues.
Well, as I did not say anything of the sort, this does not appear any longer to be a reasonable discussion on (differing) points of view. I don't particularly want to spend time on that sort of pointless game to be honest.