Originally Posted by
olivedel
I disagree totally with the wording you are using. Most of these post do not try to get compensation because people had a real issue, but just because people believe to be entitled to get money.
You may consider that an airline cancelling a flight and not offering rerouting until the following day is "not a real issue". I suspect that most people who are stranded in this way would consider this "a real issue".
We can provide advice in all fairness but it is their responsibility to do so.
Of course it is and it is not unreasonable to come here to look for advice from fellow passengers.
I find, recently, that we had more posts about 261/2004 than about quality of service or the FF program that, to my opinion, belong more to FT if we just look at how this forum is named.
Well, as you say, this is
your opinion. Others will have different view and there certainly is nothing, either in the name of the boards or in
the way FT defines its remit, to suggest that posts regarding passenger rights are outside the scope of the forum. FT is about travel (primarily air travel) and traveler information; posts enquiring about Reg 261/2004 are concerned with informing air passengers and this is precisely what FT is about.
So, basically, if my flight is cancelled, you believe that I should book myself a one-way ticket on another airline, pay for my accomodation (without knowing airlines policies about accomodation level for example) and then get reimbursed without further discussion? This is completely irrealistic.
This is not what I said (nor is this the OP's situation incidentally). But if an airline fails to fulfil its obligation to reroute by not offering an adequate rerouting or delays the carriage of a passenger and causes him/her a damage for which the airline is responsible under the Montreal Convention, it may well be that the airline ends up liable for paying the accommodation and rerouting costs that the passenger had to book themselves as a result. This will not always be the case but there will be cases where it is the only solution.
Agreed about the responsibility but is it necessary, everytime, to talk about the regulation? Just complaining to Customer Service is often enough to get compensated at the same level, without even mentionning that regulation. It also allows the airline to provide alternative compensation for customer who want it (a voucher instead of cash, or additional miles for example).
As to the latter, experience suggests that this is plainly not the case: airlines routinely fail to comply with their legal obligations and offer less than is legally required. Is it your experience that airlines spontaneously offer 75% of the price of the ticket when they downgrade someone on long-haul? IME, it is not. And, no: the Reg does not provide for compensation in vouchers, or miles, etc... (except in cases of
voluntary offloading). Naturally, nobody forces an individual to insist on the strict terms of the Reg if they are happier with something else but that is not something that is provided for in the Reg.
As to the reg being mentioned "too often", it seems to me that it is a very good thing that passengers are becoming more aware of their rights and entitlements. Airlines have too often relied on passengers not being aware of their rights to offer them less than they are entitled to. Even when someone is willing to accept something else from CR than Reg 261/2004 entitlement, it is sensible to know what you are entitled to in order to evaluate the reasonableness of what is offered to you.
Ultimately, many people have different expectations of what they come to FT for. Perhaps we can cohabit in a civil manner and be tolerant of others perspectives rather than wanting to impose our personal vision of what FT should be about. The title of the thread quite explicitly referred to Reg 261/2004. This made it extremely easy for those who are not interested in this topic to ignore the thread and move to something else which interests them more.