Originally Posted by
spin88
The problem is that if you don't appropriately balance the customer service aspects then you end up losing future revenue from those who are messed over. United has seen a lot of this which is why it has been a revenue metric (PRASM/TRASM) laggard, earning about 1/2 of what it would have, had it retained its former revenue premium.
My guess - like yours - is that OP's friend went EWR-IAD-LHR because it was a lot cheaper than EWR-LHR options (including JFK-LHR options, if that is a workable airport too). I get that what are probably discount travelers will get the short end of the stick, and my guess is that UA will make them stick to UA metal. Evidently that is what happened. I do think when - as here - its clearly an airline issue (lack of crew in EWR) then the airline should go above and beyond not to delay people by 10+ hours. I also think legislation like EC261 is needed in the US.
EC 261/2004 is available in the US. It's called travel insurance.
Rather than forcing everyone to pay the cost of what amounts to travel insurance as part of their ticket, the world outside of the EU and Israel, leaves it to the passenger.
The purpose of the Regulation was to make it in the carriers' financial interest to operate on schedule. But, here we are in 2019, and there is not even a remote suggestion that EU carriers operate at a better ontime rate or that flights covered by the Regulation operate at such a rate either.