jc94

I'm yet to hear or any airline doing this. I know EU261 requires it, but as has been pointed out no airline wants to pay out €600 (or whatever) for 300 people. I would be curious if there is any record of an airline being punished for failing to meet this particular point beyond paying anyone who writes in the €.

Correct in essence, although if you are delayed for 24 hours I believe you are also able to claim accommodation for example, if the airline didn't provide it?
I know when my sister submitted her claim she was able to upload receipts for things like food that weren't covered by the $10 voucher the airline thought appropriate for a > 5h delay.

1Newflyer

Now I know you are correct. Since your sister submitted receipts for food, it must be the law. No mention by you if she got $20 for it.

jc94

Actually she didn't submit any, but that wasn't relevant. I was pointing out that she was given the opportunity too which is in keeping with the fact that EC261 is, I believe, meant to directly cover some out of pocket expenses in addition to the refund.

1Newflyer

Very helpful, thanks. Post # 16
On ignore list you will go.

yyznomad

I believe what @jc94 meant was that his/her sister did not submit receipts (or chose not to) during the claim process (pointing out that there was the ability to upload such receipts). I could be wrong... s/he will need to clarify.

jc94

Correct. However my attempt to be helpful here about potential ability to claim for additional expenses was clearly not appreciated by all. Mount up.

yyz_atc_qq

I always fail to see how the airlines can claim that weather is the issue when a LHR-YHZ leg is delayed (or cancelled). The weather in LHR is fine, the weather in YHZ is fine, the weather in-between the two is fine. Weather should NOT be a valid defence. It's an operational choice to route the aircraft YYZ-YHZ-LHR with the same crew operating throughout. That's within the airlines control and therefore EC261 should apply. Notwithstanding that thunderstorms are rarely a surprise, and if there was a chance of delays to the outbound, then the airline "could" have had called in spare crews to deadhead downline so as to prevent such an occurrence.

Let's look at the cost.... And I'll use a near worst case. The B763 was full coming back from LHR (but no ticketed infants). 211 passengers, x 600 Euros, converted to CAD.... Almost $190,000 CAD. Somehow I don't think the cost of deadheading a crew to YHZ would have been anywhere close to this even if they ended up not being needed.

There can't be that many flights back from Europe where the inbound aircraft is operated in such a fleet management decision to push their crew to being near their operational limits. They only need to get burned once or twice and they will realize that proactive planning is key to long term cost savings.

YYC009

Rrriiiggghhhttt... because airlines should forecast severe weather and 4hr lightning advisories months in advance and not fly a plane to any third destination all day long??? How dare an airline think to route a plane YYZ-YHZ-LHR. The plane should only ever fly YYZ-YHZ and back. And they should keep spare aircraft and crew in every city they fly just incase something happens at an upline station.

I just don't understand this logic. I get that these situations are upsetting, but, things happen. You can't seriously expect that severe weather at two of the airlines biggest hubs won't have any operational impact throughout the rest of the system. If you do, I want to fly on your airline that is prepared for that! OTP must be at 100%!

yyz_atc_qq

I added a couple of extra paragraphs to clarify my point. Please read them and tell me if you still feel so strongly

YYC009

I would love to see a ruling that expects an airline to be able to charter an aircraft with a few hours notice. Note that in YYC if BA cancels the YYCLHR flight I want to know what airline in YYC is ready to lease their widebody plane that is just sitting on the ground? I mean, really? Or Condor's once weekly flight YXY-FRA, I don't remember seeing spare widebodies on the ground at YXY waiting for Condor to lease at a moment's notice...???

I can't imagine the CTA would agree to this as it would likely then require either a new flight number or notification that 'flight operated by...' be presented to the customer.

YYC009

The reason for that line is that AC covered the other expenses (hotel, etc.). So I just wanted to point out that EU comp aside, the passenger is still whole on a financial side. The extra bonus of EU comp for inconvenience is all that is left to debate.

YEG USER

Just for argument's sake, would it make any difference if this flight was sold as a single flight number for YYZ-YHZ-LHR similar to how AC33/34 flies between YYZ-SYD with a stop in YVR? People would be able to purchase LHR-YHZ independently of LHR-YYZ, but would a legitimate weather delay in the inbound flight number at its first point of departure (YYZ) be a valid defense for the delay in the return from LHR to YHZ?

YYC009

Where are you going to deadhead a crew in to YHZ if YYZ/YOW/YUL are affected by severe weather?
Ferry a flight from YVR where a B767 crew base is? I don't think the crew can fly YVR-YHZ-LHR without timing out...

yyz_atc_qq

I'd wager (and I'd put a significant wager on it) that the weather was forecast at least 24hrs in advance. AC OPS knows what routes are most at risk for having this sort of situation happen. Most European routes wouldn't be at risk since the crews would likely start their day at the airport of departure. I'd guess (and maybe SD could offer insight) that it's less than 5 routes.

The problem with the LHR-YHZ leg was that the crew starting in YYZ couldn't operate YYZ-YHZ-LHR due to the delays. If the day before OPS (in consultation with the forecast) saw there was an increased risk, they could have deadheaded a crew. If they are needed, they save upwards of $150,000 in EU261 claims, if they aren't, then they fly them home that same night or the next day and end up paying out 4-5 hrs of dead head pay, plus an overnight hotel, and per diems.

YYC009

So you want airlines to have a lot more crew members to be deadheading around the globe every time there is a risk of weather. Hmmm. I guess ticket prices must go up to hire all these extra crew members. I also guess because it is weather planning, there is no DBC for the passengers that are being bumped for the crew to take up seats on the YYZYHZ flight?

Do you only want AC to be proactive for flights to/from Europe because of the EU law? If this was a YYZ-YHZ-YYT routing, you would be okay with AC cancelling YHZYYT and return YYTYHZ due to weather at YYZ?

At the end of the day we can discuss back and forth all day long. It's fun, honest. I love the discussion. But the OP has to decide if they want to wage this battle. It will be a battle. Is it worth the time and energy? I doubt it. But perhaps the OP will take it all the way and then we could have a new court precedence to set this all out in stone for us.