Originally Posted by
subject2load
.
Under discussion here is a proposal that airlines should be required to become more pro-active and efficient in meeting their EC261 obligations to the consumer. The core objective is to ensure that the disproportionate time and effort currently expended by many claimants in resolving associated claims is shifted back - fairly & squarely - from victims of service failure to the organisations actually responsible for it.
It really is hard to believe that anyone other than the airlines could see this as other than a welcome development ; until, that is, you're reminded that there is seemingly no limit to the level to which some folk (a comparatively small number, it should be said) will go to protect and defend BA, even where that involves taking a wholly irrational stance. None more so than in this particular scenario, where the reasoning put forward by loyal BA supporters is about as spurious as the excuses often used by the airline itself to frustrate, delay, or even deny legitimate claims.
Lets not forget that we are discussing tightening an already onerous regulation still further. In what other industry are liquidated damages payable for what can often amount to little more than a minor inconvenience? Delayed bus journey? Nope. Delayed train? Perhaps a partial refund. Delayed ferry? Nope. Taxi late? No. Consumers already are heavily protected when flying by air versus any other means of transport. For those too lazy to claim compensation, I'm sorrry but they only have themselves to blame. The rest of us shouldn't have to pay more for their incompetence or laziness.