True enough but BA has been spending on lawyers for these cases which disadvantages litigants in person, even if legal costs cannot be claimed.

Compensation or Not?
 

Any thoughts on this scenario?
I had my LHR-SFO cancelled last July - and was shifted onto the next day's service. I duly clamed, and got, EU compensation for the cancellation, but unfortunately the service I was moved to had a 5 hour delay (engine related problems - so not exceptional circumstances).

BA are now saying as I got initial compensation for the cancellation they are not paying again for the delay on the re-arranged service.

I'm not too exercised about this but interested in views here as to whether BA are legally right to say this.

While I generally support consumer protection legislation, there is such a thing as bad legislation and these mad compensation rules are a good example of them. The insane rulings of the court that in effect rewrote them makes things even worse and makes a mockery of the separation of powers.

The flurry of compensation related posts here and elsewhere illustrates (a) the move to a compensation culture and (b) - related - the increased tendency for individuals to not take responsibility for their own lives. Did I mention greed yet?

Ultimately the consumer will pay for this and as word spreads it becomes yet another feeding frenzy.

The fact that this disadvantages EU airlines is another illustration of folly. No doubt as soon as another carrier goes bankrupt, there will be crocodile tears from the same politicians that make up these mad rules (and in the UK the same useless lot that has stopped expansion at Heathrow and will later moan that other European hubs have sucked the business out of the UK).

I am sorry you are entitled to your opinion but my opinion is that you are completely wrong. Passengers are entitled to decent treatment when things go wrong and the latest judgement is fully in line with the regulation.

I would not shed a single tear if this sent Ryanair out of business.

I'm sure what you typed isn't what you meant to say!:D

Believe it or not I would be sad to see any LCCs fail as a result of this, even Ryanair. I fully accept that customer service levels can range from low to appalling. On the other hand they fulfil a market requirement for bargain basement prices. And more importantly they employ people and I wold prefer not to see them out of a job.

There is a punctuation failure there. ;) And by all means feel free to be mistaken. :D

Does no one read any more these days? I said I was in favour of consumer protection. Being against EU261 does not mean one opposes consumer legislation, nor does it imply one is against decent treatment. :rolleyes:

What exactly is that supposed to mean? The court provided an interpretation of the rules, so until overruled (in this case by new legislation as there is no higher court) that interpretation is in effect the law. My point was to Montesquieu's principle that legislative, executive and judicial powers must be separate. Since the court effectively rewrote the explicit rules as set by the legislature (which did distinguish between delay and cancellation in the law), it did violate that separation of powers. That is a dreadful state of affairs.

It's not Ryanair that will be put out of business by this sort of thing IMHO. Also, be prepared to pay higher prices for flying in future. Frankly, I don't really care if prices go up, but let's see how many share that feeling... I presume that all those battling the drum for this appalling piece of legislation will happily cough up more money too and will not come here to moan about it. :rolleyes:

In terms of passenger care I think EU261 just rewinds the clock about 12 to 13 years when decent airlines looked after their passengers when unexpected things happened. The sky didn't fall in when those extra costs were part of ticket prices and it will not fall in now.

I am happy to pay a bit more on the ticket price as a result and always have been.

Just my two cents:
I think the judges should focus more on enforcing the current state, means pushing carriers to actually pay the amount passengers are entitled to.
It's not helpful to create more cases, in which airlines should pay but in reality don't pay.

At the risk of repeating myself, enforcement is a matter for the National courts not the ECJ.

I am sure judges would be more than happy to see the current state of play enforced by the courts, it's these pesky airlines keep appealing more cases...!

The floodgates have opened! [Reg 261/2004]
 

And they will continue to do so if the judges try to redefine the legislation by broadening the scope beyond what was originally drafted, against the interests of the airlines.

Airlines can not be blamed for disagreeing with this legislation any more than we customers agree with it because it benefits us. I am sure no one would be in favour if we were worse off having it in place.

I don't really get where you are coming from here (or perhaps I am missing something).

This recent case is absolutely consistent with the way EU 261 is framed. It is a literal interpretation of EU 261 as I understand it not a tangentially reasoned opinion like Sturgeon.

So again as I understand it the recent Ryanair case is not about broadening the scope it simply confirmed the scope of the regulation as drafted.

So either I am very wrong about the substance of the Ryanair case or you have an issue with EU 261 in the first place, not the straightforward and unambiguous ruling given here. If Ryanairs defence had been accepted that would have been even more of an arbitrary decision than that in the Sturgeon case.

i

Apologies if I have not kept up to speed here, I agree re Ryanair case being in keeping with the regulation, however I thought the recent comments were regarding the ECJ decision on the Sturgeon case or am I getting confused? Certainly there has been debate here on whether judges have the right to treat long delays the same way as cancellations when it does not appear that was written or implied in the regulations.

That said, my real point was it was implied that it was the airlines fault for fighting these cases, however I feel, rightly or wrongly, that someone will always fight their corner if it is in their interests, whether they are right or wrong.

Yes, you are right the consumer does pay for this. The estimates I have seen, based on data provided by the airlines, quantify the cost of compliance with Reg 261/2004 at less than 0.5%, so it should add less than 50p to every £100 that you pay in fares. Let us assume for the sake of argument that those estaimates are wildly inaccurate and that the cost is in fact 100% more than the estimate. It still remains a pretty low figure.

OK, then: if you seriously think that Reg 261/2004 will result in bankruptcies or will put EU airlines at a significant disadvantage, would you care to do a credible calculation of these costs and to compare them to other airline costs, such as personnel costs, fuel, aircraft maintenance, environmental compliance-related costs, taxation, aircraft financing costs, etc... ?

Until then, I have to confess that I will struggle to take the suggestion that Reg 261/2004 causes bankruptcies or significantly hampers the competitive position of European airlines as anything other than pure hyperbole without any grounding whatsoever in facts or serious analysis.

But, hey, why let facts or serious analysis get in a way of a good old euro-rant and repetition of tired clichés on the "compensation culture"? :)

The floodgates have opened! [Reg 261/2004]
 

If the compensation due is so insignificant why have airlines pursued this so vigorously? This is not a loaded question, I am genuinely interested as to their motive.

Further down you complain about people commenting without facts, but these estimates/studies are no more based on fact. They are entirely made up from wishful thinking and wouldn't pass a first year's science graduate test.

When you look at the history of policy making, however, the one trends that stands out is that such policies generate an ever increasing cost as time goes by. Nick Robinson did an excellent analysis on the point a few years ago. It seems to me that is pretty much the only factual information we have in all this: the evidence from past experience rather than an "estimate" from the kind of people who gave us sub prime mortgages and other such gems of economic "competence".

First of all, I am by no means a euro-sceptic. That doesn't mean however that I go overboard in the other direction either and slavishly admire anything that comes out of its institutions. On this specific issue, I have been very consistent (and am by no means the only one to take that view) that the ECJ's ruling was inappropriate.

Secondly, as a scientist I laugh at these "studies" - they aren't worth the paper they're written on. So, that makes them nothing more than opinion. In which case I am perfectly entitled to give my opinion in response. Indeed, I am quite capable of making up my own opinion instead of blankly accepting anything that someone claims as part of some of these "studies".

For someone who I believe from postings heres to have some legal background, you sure jump to conclusions. :rolleyes: