Irregular Operations
 

09-FEBRUARY-2005
IRREGULAR OPERATIONS 4,000

On Wed. Feb 9th, I was scheduled to fly YVR-LHR on AC 854

Departure time was suppose to be 6:15 PM .... However, due to repairs on our plane and then an eventual aircraft change, we never actually left YVR until 10 PM that night.

For the inconvenience, my aeroplan acct has been "gifted" 4,ooo miles.

Thanks AC ^

If the delay had lasted another hour or so (over5) then they would have had to pay you 600euro!!!

I don't think the Regulation applies for flights entering the EU...

EU cannot enforce its rules on non-EU member airlines when the delay occurs outside the EU, even if the flight is bound for an EU country.

You're lucky you were only 4 hours late. I'm sitting in MEX waiting for a flight to YYZ which will be about 12 hours late. Even though the incoming flight has been in the air for almost 2 hours and is scheuled to arrive in MEX at 12:30 in the morning, the AC computer is still lying about the departure time, saying it will be 1:00 a.m. It was supposed to leave this afternoon at 2:15.

AC has a customer service policy that obligates it to communicate accurately and often with passengers when planes are delayed. Instead they continue to feed falsehoods to passengers.

It's right up there with their 'Priority' bags that come off last, SE kits that will arrive within 3 weeks and take 5 weeks or more, all the AP "improvements" we've "enjoyed" over the last few years. Its a corporate culture to do these things and it clearly starts at the top.

4,000 miles is peanuts for your delay and you should go after them for more. The EU has the right idea. Maybe board members should start a letter writing campaign to Ottawa to get the same rules applied here.

I'm actually not so sure the EU Regulation is necessary in Canada. This a totally different environment and ballgame from that of the EU.

There's a principle involved in the EU approach. That is that if passengers are massively incovenienced, airlines pay and there is shared pain. Here all the pain is on the passenger. AC just thinks if it throws a paltry few thousand AP miles at the problem (customer), the proiblem is solved. There is minimal economic incentive for AC to provide better service and it shows!

From my perspective I would bargain for bonus status miles on these irregular operations. That is what really counts for most FFers.

Actually, I think the EU approach is horrible. With the kind of "compensation" that is being required, airlines will surely have to raise fares - and I believe the regulations apply regardless of whether the event was under the carrier's control or not. This will especially impact the low-cost carriers, which almost certainly will have to raise fares considerably, and since they are the price setters, the competition will follow. In this case I have to say - let the market decide.

I am going to toss this out here purely for discussion.

What about some protection for the airlines then, specifically against people who do not show up for their flights and the seat goes empty ?? Once the flight has departed this seat is kind like a spoiled good, not good to anybody anymore.

I know it has been tried with overselling flights, but that is fraught with problems as well (when everybody shows up). The non-refundable ticket is another tactic used to combat this, but it does not entirely solve the problem.

Nobody plans a delay, particularily a mechanical one. This policy in the EU is very dangerous in my mind, the slippery slope or thin edge of the wedge if you will. What corners may be cut or attempted to be cut in order not to have to ante up for this policy ?? As has been witnessed with a BA B744 flying 9 hours to the U.K. from LAX on 3 engines, is this a result of this policy ?? Not sure, but one can see how this policy might have an effect on decisions being made.

Comments ??

It's a non-issue, and in fact the reverse is more true.

Nowadays most of the tickets sold by most airlines self-destruct if you don't show up for your flight. That means the airline gets paid for the seat even if the passenger no-shows. Some high (sometimes very high) tickets don't suffer this consequence, and no-showing is on of the benefits you are paying for when you purchase this type of ticket.

But even then the flight is often oversold. If it's not oversold, then it's likely there simply wasn't the business to fill the flight, and the seat(s) would have gone empty even if everyone did show up. On the other had if the flight is oversold, not only does the airline get paid for the no-show seat (in most cases) they also get to resell the seat a second time, and double dip, getting paid twice for the same seat.

On the other hand, the protection for the passenger is often trite in comparison. While the airlines are happy to stick it to passengers who no-show, they are equally happy to sell the same seat twice or more, then leave people behind if everyone shows up. There is usually (but not always) compensation for this. But even if you get $200 or $300 or whatever, does that adequately compensate someone who needs to travel urgently, whether it be for a business meeting, a funeral, or to catch a cruise ship?

The problem the airlines are suffering now is that for almost forever, airlines have operated on their own rules, without a hint of morals or ethics. Advertising one-way fares when return purchase is required, double selling seats, or claiming "weather" as the cause of the delay often when it is not are only a small sample of some of the tawdry practices airlines have employed for years. It's just that consumer activism (and to a lesser degree the competitive market) are finally catching up to the airlines.

The delay was not so bad for those of us waiting in MLL... (the Lounge staff were told they would have to stay and keep the lounge open, since our flight was the last one out.)

I felt sorry for those passenger sitting and waiting by the gate.... some of them had come from other points in BC and had been waiting since early afternoon. AC did not offer food vouchers for them. Us in the MLL had unlimitted cheese and crackers and liquid refreshments.. plus a nice environment to wait.

AC informed us at 5 o'clock that due to mechanical we would be delayed until 7:15... then it was announced we would leave at 8:30.... then at 8:15 we were told they had to get another plane, and would board at 9:30 ... My main concern was the staff who were waiting at the gate for 4 hours. I was worried they may say it would go over their union hours to work, and we would have to await a new crew.

Nothing was mentioned to us about $$ for delay.

For me the delay was just a delay and LHR was as far as I was going, but over half the plane had connecting flights to make at LHR ....

That's great theory but in large parts of this country including most of the route network of AC Jazz there is no market, there is a monopoly. And AC Jazz acts like a monopoly. It doesn't care about Jazz passengers and their connections nearly as much as those passengers originating from points where AC does face competition.

There is very much a role for clear rules protecting consumers in those areas. Not interventionist government heavy handedness, just simple direct penalties payable to the consumer for gross non-performance. Just the implementation of such an approach, like the EU, would force them to clean up their act at least a bit.

letter from AC
 

Having just returned home from LHR last night, I didn't have time to open mail until now.

Surprisingly AC has sent me a letter in regards to the delayed Feb. 9th departure.


Dear Ms. Nobody-Elite,

We sincerely apologize that your travel on Feb. 9th, 2005 was affected by the delay of our flight to London Heathrow.

Flight AC 854 was delayed due to an engine problem. We understand that flight disruptions are frustrating and assure you that we do all to minimize these occurrences. Our first priority, however, is always the safety of our customers and crew.

As a gesture of goodwill, 4,000 miles will be credited to your Aeroplan account shortly.

Once again, Ms. Nobody-elite, please accept our sincere apologies. We value your business and your loyalty and we look forward to another opportunity to provide you with a more pleasurable experience in the near future.

sincerely
some scribbled initials.

* The form letter's letter head says Rob Reid Senior Vice-president of Operations

The address is AC Customer Relations in Calgary

I wouldn't be so quick that there is no pain shared by the airline.

In fact, even if AC didn't care about its customers, you still have the fact that a delay in the morning will have a sprialling impact on operations further on in the day. This means more money AC needs to spend as a result of increased labour costs and a big time screw up in ops plan for that specific plane and the routes it flies on (if we looked at this situation in a bit of a a vacuum).

Now, add back in the fact that there are customers, these inconvenienced folks as yourself are peeved as hell and thus may now go to a competitor.

So while the new EU Regulation is a good thing, perhaps it over does it. Consumer protection is good. Over-protection is not. Like I suggested in other threads, it's definitely more political and has a resonance of some kind of European Parliament doing.

And it's funny -- this type of Regulation doesn't exist for trains or buses -- so why should there be this double standard?

Heck, do you think WS or any other airline would welcome such a thing? I don't think so. Maybe a little bit of protection, but no way in hell would they say you should get 500CAD cash++ for a ticket that you paid only 250CAD for (and only 130CAD of it went to the airline to pay for the service and the good).