Stranger

According to AC horizons:
http://www.achorizons.ca/daily/en/default2.asp

"European Union Says Airlines Must Compensate Bumped Passengers. According to the National Post, the European Parliament has annoyed the airline industry by approving tough new rules that will force operators to make generous compensation payments for victims of overbooking and cancellations. The law, which must be ratified by European governments, will provide EUR 250 ($288) in cash compensation for flights less than 1,500 km, EUR 400 ($461) for flights between 1,500 km and 3,500 km and EUR 600 ($691) for long-haul flights. Until now, airlines only had to offer alternative flight arrangements or reimbursement. Airlines will also be forced to provide passengers affected by significant delays with refreshments, meals and even hotels in cases where they are stranded in an airport overnight"

Real "annoying" I suppose? (BTW, I could not find the National Post article. Did *they* describe the scheme as "annoying" to the industry, or is that AC spin?

airbus320

"annoying"....read accountable instead!

purser @AC

My last flight to LHR was overbooked by 70 seats. We left with 50 open. Ten of the J class customers originally booked on the flight, did not end up onboard. It would seem a little disingenuous, to criticize the airlines for a practice, which is designed to minimize the financial impact of customer noshows.
The icing on the cake, is trying to pawn off a special meal, ordered by a noshow customer.
Until there is an across the board penalty for not honouring a reservation, customers will noshow, and airlines will overbook to compensate.

blackheath46

purser@ac, was the J cabin full on that LHR flight?

Stranger

So the airlines overbook? Fine, that's not the issue, which was: what is the appropriate compensation. And AC qualifying a more reasonable level as "annoying." What does that reveal about AC's attitude with respect to customers?

Incidentally, if your flight was overbooked by 70 and left with 50 empty seats, either you had lots of high fare customers, or a lot of the empty seats had been paid for anyway. Trying to have it both ways, aren't we?

Now suggesting that *even at high fares* there should be a penalty for no show? Come on, make up your mind, do you want high fares *or* do you want to run a low fare business?

taupo

When I buy a full fare J ticket, you (AC) have my money, I have the right to noshow a flight. If I am going to noshow, I always call as a matter of courtesy. However, one of the perks of being a high rev passenger is that we work on our time frame and not ACs.

WR Cage

The compensation levels quoted are higher than some LCC's airfares. Has the law taken this into effect? Any businessowner here would be annoyed with the Canadian government if a law was enacted that provided for significantly higher compensation than the original purchase price.

Can I fly AMS-BCN for $100 US and get bumped off for compensation of $461 US??? Way better than any mileage run in my books.

msn

A well run airline will not have problems with these fees. Ryanair will - I scoped them out last year researching an European "low cost carrier" - as they still hand load baggage, have problems with work flow, and tend to board assisted passengers inefficiently.

The new regulations seem to be more directed to exercises by the "low cost carriers" of cancelling a flight and telling people to be back the next day - and telling the frustrated customers, too bad but tough nuggets.

shuuy

IIRC, RyanAir does not oversell flights, simply because they have a 'use it or lose it' ticketing system (i.e. every seat is paid for, so if they don't show up, there's no loss in revenue).

O

purser @AC

I don't believe that it was AC that used the term "annoyed".
I believe that it is still possible to make a reservation on a flight to some destinations, without actually having proof of a paid ticket. Some people actually make multiple reservations on several different airlines. In addition, higher fare tickets are like currency. Fully redeemable, should travel plans change. Therefor, the airline does not really have the money, until the seat is used. I applaud individuals, who have the courtesy, to cancel a reservation, when their plans change and are unable to travel.

Stranger

Perhaps not, who knows. They attribute the story to the National Post. But I have not been able to locate the article. And theirs is not a direct quote but a paraphrase. Which seems to indicate that at the very least they endorsed the wording.

But then, isn't that the very reason for open tickets to be as expensive as they are? Most will agree that overbooking is not unreasonable. But then, the compensation should be reasonable too.

Would airlines prefer us to buy restricted tickets and pay a change fee when needed?

(My beef with that is that nowadays changes can typically only be done by the issuing agent. So I got to get in touch with these guys halfway across the word. Calling the SE desk won't do me any good. And to add insult to injury, the TA will charge another $60 +tax/ticket/change.)




[This message has been edited by Stranger (edited 07-10-2003).]

Ken hAAmer

That may or may not be, but they do have a documented history of cancelling flights (apparently due to low loads) and abandoning passengers, sometimes not even allowing them to use the ticket on a later flight.

msn

And denying boarding for people 29 seconds late at check-in, lousy baggage handling, and fees that would make Rupert envious.

respectable_man

Please see:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3040432.stm
and related links.

[This message has been edited by respectable_man (edited 07-10-2003).]

keithguy

That's just the way denied boarding compensation just is. Just because the fare is low does not mean one is due less compensation. I've been bumped in the US on a $200US ticket and received $400US.

I hope you aren't suggesting that compensation be based on a passenger's paid fare.