Ldnn1

Just as different passengers pay vastly different prices for essentially the same service.

My point is simply that there are different ways of apportioning risk and taking into account the ticket price is one way. Airlines can, for example, offer guaranteed compensation for a 1 hour delay, in exchange for a higher ticket price. (Wizzair actually do this but I doubt many take it up.)

As I said, I actually think the regulation is probably the right approach to protect the consumer in this market. I just wonder if the amounts are right. I heard an analyst estimate (can't remember where) that this would add Ł3 to the cost of tickets, which I would say is small but significant. Others may disagree.

serfty

As posted I posted earlier on post #807:If 'punitive' is not a word you might use then so be it - but the regulated compensation was increased to a level that can make it very costly for a carrier to not consider "the rights of passengers".

8420PR

From an airline point of view, the legislation has significantly changed in 10 years from punitive compensation payable where an airline took a commercial decision to overbook a flight or cancel a flight due to low loads, to having to pay punitive compensation where a flight is delayed because of a technical problem with the engine (that wasn't planned for).


I totally agree. If I had the task of rewriting the legislation now, I would propose higher levels of punitive compensation for denied boarding, and smaller levels of compensation with higher time thresholds for all delays or cancellations, whatever the reason. Consumers would know exactly where they stand (without needing to resort to court claims) and airlines focused on operational excellence would see improved profitability.

Looking at the 2013 stats, ryanair had 0.48% of flights delayed by more than 3 hours, so assuming a €150 automatic compensation for each passenger would cost approx €0.75 averaged across all passengers (i.e. well below their current surcharge - though I haven't included any duty of care costs).

Centipede100

NickB

Fixed your comment for you by removing the 2 x "no"...

Compensation is payable for cancelled flights unless passengers are offered rerouting 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.

csutter

So how does that tie in with the full/reduced amounts then? If the threshold for receiving compensation at all is the same as the threshold for receiving full (rather than reduced) compensation, when is the reduced compensation level ever applicable?

Centipede100

If you departed up to one hour before your originally scheduled departure time and arrived up to 2 hours later than your scheduled arrival time you would be entitled to 50% of the full €250 i.e. €125.

If you arrived more than 2 hours after your originally scheduled arrival time then you would be entitled to the full compensation amount of €250.

BA as the original carrier is liable in either case.

adam007

Hi everyone,

Thanks to all that contribute to this thread. I have found it very useful, and thought I would share my recent experience getting a compensation claim from British Airways. Here is a timeline of what happened:

14 May 2014: My family and I were scheduled to fly on BA2167, from London Gatwick to Tampa, Florida. It was cancelled, because of an unspecified technical problem. The earliest flight they could put us on was the next day. They put us (a family of four) in a small hotel room, gave us lunch vouchers, and a terrible dinner and breakfast. We were on the same flight the next day, so we started our holiday 24 hours late.

2 Jun 2014: I sent an email via the ba.com webform, requesting compensation of 600 EUR per passenger, citing EC 261/2004.

3 Jun 2014: I received an email from BA that an "unexpected technical fault" occurred, so they were not liable.

3 Jun 2014: I replied via webform that BA were indeed liable, as technical faults were not usually extraordinary circumstances, citing Wallentin-Hermann. I said if the technical fault was indeed extraordinary, to provide evidence that, for example, the manufacturer had revealed a defect.

4 Jun 2014: BA replied that the technical fault was a problem with the wheel discovered during final safety checks, and that since the wheel was not due to be replaced, this constitutes extraordinary circumstances.

5 Jun 2014: I replied that this wheel fault was not extraordinary circumstances, as it was not due to, for example, a manufacturing defect revealed as such by the manufacturer, re-citing Wallentin-Hermann.

6 Jun 2014: BA replied that it was indeed extraordinary, citing the NEB guidance.

6 Jun 2014: I replied that the Apr 2013 NEB guidance was draft and non-legally-binding. I noted that the EU parliament vote to amend EC 261/2004 on 5 Feb 2014 ignored the NEB guidance, and added an exhaustive list of extraordinary circumstances, which only included technical problems that were formally-acknowledged manufacturing defects. I also stated that if compensation was not agreed, I would no longer communicate via webform, and the next communication would be a letter in the post discussing a court claim.

11 Jun 2014: With no response from BA (and unaware of the Huzar ruling), I sent a "letter before court action" in the post to the BA EU compensation PO box in Sudbury. I sent it Royal Mail special delivery.

12 Jun 2014: royalmail.com reports the letter was signed for at 8:07am.

12 Jun 2014: At 8:28am, I receive an email that they are going to compensate me 600 EUR per passenger. Success!

I have no idea if it was the letter before action that caused them to agree compensation. I wouldn't have expected a response 21 minutes after they received the letter. Maybe the Huzar ruling prompted them to start paying out? I also doubt BA would have been that quick to respond to Huzar, given it will likely be appealed.

NickB

IMO, you are making a totally unwarranted assumption as to what the legislation was supposed to mean. It seems to me pretty plain, whether one looks at its actual provisions, the discussions on the Reg during the legislative process or its interpretation by the CJEU since then, that the aim was always first and foremost one of compensation of passengers rather than "punishing" airlines. A "punitive" level of compensation is one which would be massively disproportionate with the harm suffered by the passenger. I do not think that a €250 award is manifestly grossly out of proportion with the prejudice suffered by the passenger for a flight delay of over 2 hrs on a short-haul itinerary (and mutatis mutandis for the other levels of compensation in the Reg)

NickB

Thanks. You are indeed correct, although the "and" should also be changed to an "or" in the original and should therefore have read:

csutter

Bear with me as I appear to be incredibly thick - I still don't get it! So we have:

a)
b)
I've read it three times now and as I understand it:

a) If your flight is cancelled and your replacement flight departs less than an hour earlier or arrives less than two hours later than your original flight would have, then you get nothing.
b) If your flight is cancelled and your replacement flight departs less than an hour earlier or arrives less than two hours later than your original flight would have, then you get 50% of the "regular" amount due.

Surely a) and b) contradict each other, in the sense that there is no possible situation where b) applies that isn't covered by a)?

Centipede100

Congrats on obtaining what was rightfully yours.

For clarity on what may happen next Bott and Co comment:

Supreme Court appeals list, case after case refused with this reason:

Permission to appeal be refused because the application does not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance which ought to be considered by the Supreme Court at this time, bearing in mind that the case has already been the subject of judicial decision and reviewed on appeal. The Court of Appeal’s decision was correct for the reasons they gave.

Jet2 have nothing to lose by seeking leave to petition the Supreme Court. Even if their petition is accepted and they subsequently lose in that Court, it will have successfully fended off many more claims through talk of stays etc. Then we shall have 2015 upon us and a revised 261/2004 from which there will be many responses to claims arising before the commencement of the revision stating not valid/time barred/diff set of ECs now apply/further stays due to new case law applications etc

So far from a complete drubbing it is certain that airlines will take some comfort from Jet2 proceeding as far as they can in their efforts to kick claims into the long grass.

NickB

You are looking at it the wrong way round. You must first determine whether you are entitled to Art 7 compensation or not. In case of canx, you look in principle at Art. 5.
Once it is established that you are entitled to compensation under Art 7, then you need to look at the detail of the article to determine which amount you are entitled to.

Let us not forget that Art 7 covers compensation across all 3 situations (IDB, canx and delay). It could very well be the case that there are situations where you are entitled to €125 compensation for IDB and never for delays or canx.
As it happens, in case of cancellations, there can be situations where you are entitled to €125. This would be when you are rerouted on a short-haul flight that departs more than one hour earlier compared to the original schedule but arrives no more than two hours later at destination.
For instance, you were due to fly ZRH to LHR on LX, leaving ZRH at 8.50pm and arriving LHR at 9.40pm. LX phones you the night before to tell you that they have cancelled that flight and are putting you on the 6.35pm, landing at 7.25pm. In principle, you would be entitled to €125 compensation.

In cases of delays (as opposed to cancellation), however, you will never be entitled to €125, since compensation only kicks in when there are 3 hours or more of delays and therefore you will never be entitled to compensation for a delay < 2 hrs.

The fact that the part of Art 7 on reduced compensation for arrival less than 2 hrs after original scheduled time never applies to delays (as opposed to cancellations) does not mean that there is a contradiction. It is just that this part of the Reg will not in practice apply to short-haul delays (even though there are situations where it will apply to short-haul canx or IDBs).

corporate-wage-slave

Congratulations adam007, you had a very sub optimal journey to Florida so I think it would be a hard person who would begrudge your compensation. I'd hope BA would be a bit more proactive in finding alternative routes for you too, since given the JBA it has to be more financially sensible than chucking out 2400€ in compensation. My suspicion is that your message on 6 June was taken seriously, since I can't believe the registered letter would have been processed that quickly. But what is interesting was that they paid out before MCOL kicked in, so at least BA saved themselves some court fees. Thank you posting the steps, I think that would be useful to others as to how to handle this, and the appropriate time scales. Your relatively swift resolution may have been due to you clearly demonstrating you knew the drill (e.g. the NEB draft).

Welcome to Flyertalk, I hope that you will have more conventional travel experiences from now on, and that you will continue to participate in this forum.

tripodjw

I just reopened my claim citing the appeal decision in Huzar v Jet2. We'll see how it goes... Would be interested to hear how quickly others get a response to citing this at them (and whether they just start giving compensation out or carry on fighting)

roberino

That's some fancy footwork there, but it does not stand up to scrutiny. In any other industry the provider of services would need to compensate the customer for the actual costs of anything they did wrong, for example, my roofer broke my TV aerial so he paid for it to be fixed rather than recommending an engineer to fix it at my cost.

The airlines have to be held to the same standard. If I have to overnight somewhere or get dinner due to IRROPS then compensation for the hotel and the restaurant are the airline's to bear, not mine. That's true whether you pay 30 quid or 3000 quid for your ticket. The LCC's knew that when they started their businesses with that model and went ahead anyway.

The few hundred quid that the passenger gets as part of the legislation is an attempt to simplify the process and actually take some of the costs of liability off the airline. Everyone gets the same, no negotiation, less overhead for the airline.

As for the airline paying even when it's not their fault - I don't get why you object to this. You can't strand passengers somewhere at great cost to them without compensating them. The compensation has to come from somewhere, and sure, it gets passed on in ticket prices eventually but managing risk is a part of doing ANY business.