31570324

The LH Flight could bring me home same day (Destination -> BRE) but I am not sure if they have to book me on this flight:

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004
Cancellation
1. In case of cancellation of a flight, the passengers concerned shall:
(a) be offered assistance by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 8; and
(b) be offered assistance by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 9(1)(a) and 9(2), as well as, in event of re-routing when the reasonably expected time of departure of the new flight is at least the day after the departure as it was planned for the cancelled flight, the assistance specified in Article 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(c); and
(c) have the right to compensation by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 7, unless:
(i) they are informed of the cancellation at least two weeks before the scheduled time of departure; or
(ii) they are informed of the cancellation between two weeks and seven days before the scheduled time of departure and are offered re-routing, allowing them to depart no more than two hours before the scheduled time of departure and to reach their final destination less than four hours after the scheduled time of arrival; or
(iii) they are informed of the cancellation less than seven days before the scheduled time of departure and are offered re-routing, allowing them to depart no more than one hour before the scheduled time of departure and to reach their final destination less than two hours after the scheduled time of arrival.
2. When passengers are informed of the cancellation, an explanation shall be given concerning possible alternative transport.
3. An operating air carrier shall not be obliged to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7, if it can prove that the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.
4. The burden of proof concerning the questions as to whether and when the passenger has been informed of the cancellation of the flight shall rest with the operating air carrier.

You see at (ii) that they are only have to transport me within a short period if they cancel the flight within two weeks before departure. This is not the case. But maybe this could help:

Article 8
Right to reimbursement or re-routing
1. Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall be offered the choice between:
(a) - reimbursement within seven days, by the means provided for in Article 7(3), of the full cost of the ticket at the price at which it was bought, for the part or parts of the journey not made, and for the part or parts already made if the flight is no longer serving any purpose in relation to the passenger's original travel plan, together with, when relevant,
- a return flight to the first point of departure, at the earliest opportunity;
(b) re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination at the earliest opportunity; or
(c) re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination at a later date at the passenger's convenience, subject to availability of seats.
2. Paragraph 1(a) shall also apply to passengers whose flights form part of a package, except for the right to reimbursement where such right arises under Directive 90/314/EEC.
3. When, in the case where a town, city or region is served by several airports, an operating air carrier offers a passenger a flight to an airport alternative to that for which the booking was made, the operating air carrier shall bear the cost of transferring the passenger from that alternative airport either to that for which the booking was made, or to another close-by destination agreed with the passenger.

Earliest opportunity on a AF flight or earliest opportunity on any flight?

NickB

"should" as in what? moral duty or legal obligation? as to moral duty, I would agree with you. As to legal obligations, see below.

Incidentally, what you quoting from is not the text of the rules but, anyway, the rules specify that you are entitled to routing to your final destination in comparable transport conditions "at the earliest opportunity". "at the earliest opportunity" is not defined anywhere in the Regulation. The Regulation, in particular, does not specify whether this should be understood as meaning re-routing on any airline or re-routing on the airline's own services only. All airlines, afaik, interpret this as creating an obligation to re-route at the earliest opportunity on their own services only (surprise, surprise). They consider that any rerouting on an alternative carrier is not a legal obligation on them but entirely at their discretion. They may or may not be right but I am not aware of any authoritative caselaw either way. If you know any, please do let us know.
As far as AF is concerned, IME there is a direct correlation between fare paid and willingness to reroute on alternative carriers: on cheap fares, they will refuse point blank unless the delay is of several days. In higher fare buckets, they are more flexible.


The Montreal Convention does provide for damages in case of delay in transportation but does not define what should be regarded as a delay in transportation. It does not, in particular, define whether a sked change or flight cancellation in advance and consequential change to the ticket should be regarded as a delay in transportation within the meaning of the Convention when the airline reserves the right to alter its schedules.

As I stated earlier, the OP might have legal redress depending on how customer friendly the jurisdiction concerned is but it is a speculative route.

I don't "do" blame on such things. FWIW, I find the legal environment on the whole unconscionably biased towards the airlines but that is besides the point. But all the moral indignation in the world will not affect the OP's legal position and entitlements except in the never-never land of just deserts.

I regularly have fairly complex connections on multiple tickets so I know what it is like and I certainly would not blame anybody for doing that. However, being realistic means that it would be foolish when doing that not to consider the possibility of one of your flight being cancelled and ask yourself: "what then?"

I do not think it is good advice to tell people: "well don't worry. You have the moral high ground and therefore the airline will sort you out". You are experienced enough to know that this is not the case and that in those kinds of situations you may have to fight and there is absolutely no guarantee that you will win such a fight.

I am not averse to asserting my rights with airlines but I will certainly take steps to lower the opportunity of such fights and plan accordingly. I will also balance out the cost in terms of hassle and time spent with the potential loss.

orbitmic

I think NickB summarises the situation extremely well. The other advantage of having a clear sense of the legal background (notwithstanding uncertainties and grey areas that are plentiful) is to allow for the OP to make an informed decision on what 'tone' to choose. You mention being quite 'aggressive' and quite 'legalistic' but personally, I'd only choose this tone when I'm sure of my legal right which wouldn't be the case if I were in the OP's situation. BY contrast, when I find my situation to be uncertain, I'll always prefer a conciliatory tone and 'ask for a favour' rather than 'try to negotiate'. It might be a personal thing but for me it works the same in reverse - if I am in a strong position and someone asks me to do a favour and help, I'll usually try to if it is something I can do. If I am in a strong position and the person who is not tries to negotiate, you can bet I won't bulge as their attitude would come across (rightly or wrongly) as arrogant to me. And just to confirm, I really don't think anyone is blaming the OP, quite the contrary, many of us have expressed genuine sympathy for what he is experiencing - we're just trying to give our (imperfect) opinion on what we believe to be his 'formal' entitlements so that he knows whether what he is asking is more likely to be a legal right or a favour.

brunos

With all due respect, I find this thread about a flight canceled several months ahead to be an overkill. Airlines periodically adjust their schedule. In the past few months most airlines have reduced their future capacity due to the economic slowdown, especially to/from Europe. The situation might be a bit more difficult for pax whose flights are canceled with a very short notice, but here we are talking about a couple of months (maybe even the winter schedule). There must be hundred of thousands of pax affected. Unfortunate yes, but normal in the industry.
We have no indication on the exact itin and possible changes in connections in CDG or elsewhere, but AF seems to have done what it should have done, i.e. offer a flight ten hours earlier or a refund. One can be unhappy that there is an economic slowdown and reduction in flight frequency, but that's life. We all feel sympathy for the OP who had landed a magnificent deal (probably because of the low loads) and now gets disturbed in his travel plan. But I do not see any ground the OP could use to negotiate further. NickB and Orbitmic have summarized the legal background.

Centipede100

One man's overkill is another's understated!

AF should offer the OP re-routing at the earliest opportunity (following the cancellation time) or at a later date at the passenger's convenience, which AF hasn't (yet) done.

You might not see the wood for the trees but it does indeed matter to the OP. You might care to remember this next time you are in unfamiliar territory (figuratively-speaking) and require some assistance!

brunos

The assistance we can provide the OP on this forum is not to offer another flight, but to tell him what is realistic and what is not. We all sympathize about the 7 hour wait in CDG created by the change of schedule, but AF offers to rebook on the previous or following flight. The OP can hardly expect more.

orbitmic

??? So what exactly leads you to assert that? (1) When the ticket is booked through a travel agent, it is for the travel agent to organise the rerouting, (2) AF (through expedia) offered rerouting at the earliest opportunity (nowhere does it say 'after the cancellation time' typically one simply goes for the nearest time be it before or after), which was the night before. (3) in the case of flight cancellations, AF provides travel agents with 'commercial instructions' which details what is and is not allowed. I have not checked the specific instructions for this particular trip, but AF commercial instructions for flights which are cancelled or significantly changed in timings tend to always be more or less the same - and happen to be some of the most generous in the industry. Typically: a) reroute at the earliest opportunity in the same booking class or if not available in the same transport class, b) rerouting on KL or DL in the same transport class if preferred, c) report within 30 days before or after departure date in the same booking class, d) full refund. This again (and notably the changes within a full month) go well beyond the airline's regulatory obligation AF is under. We know that the OP asked for something which is outside of these (fairly generous) AF offers and his request was declined. He was offered rerouting at the earliest opportunity which does not work well for him and I have no doubt that if he asks somethng else within the realm of AF commercial instructions (e.g. to be flown on the next day in the same travel class, or any day within a month before or after which has the same booking class available or to be reimbursed) he will be obliged. AF has fulfilled every single one of its regulatory obligations as far as I can see, and it is now for the OP's travel agent - as per industry dominant practice (point taken earlier than some airlines are exception) to advise him on what is/is not allowed. What the OP wanted (rerouting) is not allowed but there are, effectively, plenty of options and consistently with its regulatory obligations, AF has communicated with the OP's travel agent to advise them on all of them.

NickB

c) is definitely not fully compliant, As centipede100 noted, in addition to earliest opportunity rerouting, the airline must also offer rerouting at a later date of the passenger's choosing. However, they may impose availability constraints in that case (in other words: same booking class). Limiting it to 30 days either side has no basis in the regulation.

Not that this is of much relevance here, as it would not really help the OP.

31570324

It was not my plan to make a big thing of it, sorry. If there is no other way I will ask them to book me on klm which has a shorter overlay in Ams for the same evening. my plan was to stay at the airport, not in a hotel, and then take the morning flight. now I have to go to the city and stay in a hotel. I booked this ticket to safe money, now I have to pay a extra hotel night, transport to city....... Not a big deal, I have the money, but in this way the routing over hkg didn't save me much money. but of course there is no special to bkk now, so to cancel wouldn't help.

orbitmic

So do you take the 'at a later date' to mean 'at any later date without limit'? (genuine question). Or would an airline be able to set a 'reasonable limit'? I wouldn't have said it was obvious either way but maybe the unlimited version is what the institution meant. I also take 'rebooking at a later date at the passenger's convenience' to mean that if it is more convenient to the passenger (s)he has the right to fly at a later date rather than at the earliest possibility but wouldn't necessarily (in my reading) imply 'at (any) later date of the passenger's choosing' but again it equally would be conceivable to say that since the regulation doesn't specify any limitation maybe it should be any time in the future, but I wonder if there is any case which has pushed airlines on that. OT but the more I think of it, the more I think that this regulation has been rather poorly crafted. I still don't understand why it formally offers rerouting at a later date but not at an earlier one for instance. And I still think it should have specified if valid reroutings should include those on other airlines or just the airline's own.

NickB

I am sure that one must read a reasonable limit into that. I doubt that you could come back in 50 years' time, for instance, to claim your flight.

It seems to me 100% clear, however, that the Reg does not give the airline to arbitrarily define a limit of 30 days. There is not a single word in the Reg to suggest that nor anything in the spirit or economy of the Reg to suggest that.

I can see how, for instance, how a reasonable interpretation of the Reg might require the pax to rebook now-ish (i.e. when they exercise the option to go for a rebooking in the future rather than refund or rebooking at earliest opportunity) and therefore be limited to the period between the flight and the end of schedule, so typically up to 330 ahead.

But that is a totally different thing from the airline itself arbitrarily setting a 30 days limit. That I do not see any basis for in the Reg.

Guy Betsy

They are not obliged to change the routing destination but if you can perhaps speak to a Supervisor and say that you would like to change the return as an open-jaw. ie fly into HK and out of BKK. It may trigger a different rate to the one you've paid (it might even be cheaper) and tell them that due to the change in timings from the original flight, this is the only way you can get home. Otherwise opt for thm to put you on KLM departing from HK instead.

31570324

Was this weekend at a airport with a AirFrance Ticket Desk. They told me AF would never change the routing but it shouldn't be a problem to get on the KLM flight instead of the AF flight if I call Expedia again. So, will still be at home 12 hours to late but dont have to wait long 8 hours in CDG, only half the time in AMS.

irishguy28

Please let us know how you get on with Expedia armed with that information.

(It's always good to hear how the stories reported here pan out).

redtop43

This is what ticks me off about airlines.

If the OP had some kind of situation where he had to move his flight by half a day, the airline would charge him, either an arm and a leg if the flight was on a different day (and goodness, if he was going to leave at 10:50PM and intstead had to leave at 12:05AM that's a different day.), or perhaps just a couple of fingers if the same day.

But when they decide to change the flight, they just say "eh, so go when we tell you, or go p*** up a rope." Perhaps at the time he booked, AF had a promotion but maybe other airlines did too.

It's not like he's asking to change his departure airport from MUC to BKK.

I think they should bend over backwards to accomodate him. He bought a ticket in good faith. I'm not saying AF has to charter a plane just for him. But they should do anything reasonable and possible to make it good for him.

A few years ago my wife was flying YYZ-ATL-JAX and there was bad weather, they cancelled my wife's seat, it was at least partly their fault, as they did give her a $200 voucher. Everything the next day was sold out, and when I called them I just asked if they could rebook her the following day YYZ-ATL-MCO. They were very cooperative.