Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > British Airways | Executive Club
Reload this Page >

'Which?' target BA for EC261 petition - please sign

'Which?' target BA for EC261 petition - please sign

Old Jun 29, 2017, 5:44 am
  #46  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: London
Posts: 344
Having automatic payout is unquestionably fair, rather than the current position where learners are only compensated if they ask. Even fairer if there are some independent body that determined whether a flight qualifies by reference to clear criteria.

Unquestionably, that would be bad for people who use this site as it likely means that some of the following wolf likely happen :

Amounts of compensation would reduce

The circumstances under which payments are made would tighten

Prices would go up

That doesnt mean that it shouldn't happen, of course. But I do wonder how many people on flights that qualify actually get compensated. My total guess at the breakdown is :

Most don't ask

Of those that do, lots get knocked back with the initial denial of liability

Some push the point and get paid.

I know ba do settle quickly in cases where liability is obvious, but we also know that they do push back on claims that they later settle. I do think it would be unquestionably fairer if everyone got paid, I just suspect I would be worse off for it!
Bluebirdnick is offline  
Old Jun 29, 2017, 6:07 am
  #47  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: UK
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 12,173
I've only one experience with EU261 and it was rejected. I couldn't be bothered to challenge. I feel "auto reject" isn't that uncommon.

Rather than perhaps auto pay, it is clear the airlines should be pro actively issuing literature when they are to blame. The recent threads on the 48 hours delay from LAS, this was not issued.

Perhaps those stuck for 48 hours might have had more fun on the Strip and been less annoyed if they'd known they had a sure fire 600 Euros to play with
mikeyfly is offline  
Old Jun 29, 2017, 6:31 am
  #48  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brighton. UK
Programs: BA Gold / VS /IHG Diamond & Ambassador
Posts: 14,141
Originally Posted by Bluebirdnick

Amounts of compensation would reduce

The circumstances under which payments are made would tighten

1. the compensation is set in the regulation so unless the 3 EU institutions (Council, Commission and Parliament) agree to reduce them they will stay at 600 (just as there has been no increase since 2004!

2. Again no, the regulation would need to be re-written / amended plus those pesky judges would likely still get to do a few rulings (like they were the ones who said it applied to delays)


What does need to happen is the proposed amendments such as increasing the delay time from which it is due to be paid from. That really was unfair to the airlines to take a time period from 'duty of care' and apply it to delays.
UKtravelbear is offline  
Old Jun 29, 2017, 6:38 am
  #49  
330
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Flying between BER, ZRH, EZE, COR
Programs: LH SEN, UA 1K, A3*G, AR Platino, BA Gold
Posts: 113
Originally Posted by Ldnn1
I'll be devil's advocate here - I actually think BA are relatively good in respect of EU261. That's to say, I don't think any/many other airlines out there are any better overall.

Still, people are welcome to sign the petition of course.
Eurowings responded to me within 24 hours and my 250 where on my bank account within 4 days.
Even AB, with which operational problems, were able to respond and pay EU261 cash within a week.

Meanwhile, I am still in discussion over a 4-hour delay with BA for a month now.
330 is offline  
Old Jun 29, 2017, 6:49 am
  #50  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Ipswich
Posts: 7,543
I've had mixed experiences claiming from BA. I believe they deny some claims knowing that some people will give up. I also question whether they fulfill their obligations of informing passengers of their rights.

So I'm all for something that encourages BA to do the right thing. If people choose not to claim - that's fine. I've opted not to do so on occasions. But I bet many of the people who don't do so today either don't know their rights, or believe it will be too much hassle to claim.

I don't really see that 'Airline X is better/worse at....' has any relevance on whether BA should improve their conduct in this area, or indeed whether someone should sign the petition.
windowontheAside is offline  
Old Jun 29, 2017, 6:56 am
  #51  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Brexile in ADB
Programs: BA, TK, HHonours, Le Club, Best Western Rewards
Posts: 7,067
If a company can act illegally on one area there is of course the very grave danger that the culture will spread.
Worcester is offline  
Old Jun 29, 2017, 7:32 am
  #52  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Netherlands
Programs: KL Platinum; A3 Gold
Posts: 28,550
Originally Posted by Ldnn1
That’s exactly what airlines do. They can do deals on parking charges. Ad hoc take-offs/landings are always part of sorting out IRROPS.
Yes. But that is sorting out IRROPS. Something that airlines have always had to do, whether or not there was an EC261/2004 dimension added or not.

To suggest, as you did, that airlines are now keeping aircraft out of service and positioning these spare aircraft randomly (how could it be targetted?) solely because of the added cost burden of EC261/2004, is a completely different proposition. Were you saying that they are now trying to "predict" where the next EC261/2004 blowout may occur, and already have a spare craft (and potentially spare crew) on standby there?

Originally Posted by Ldnn1
Fleet under-utilisation is undesirable, but as I said above it can be offset by the savings incurred through having the standbys available. And selecting which airports are best to position which aircraft is part and parcel of the network and ops management job. Of course, decisions are always based on a number of factors and not all airlines will have standbys available some or all of the time, but many do.
So, again, you seem to be saying that aircraft are tactically deployed specifically because of the cost of EC261/2004 failures, and therefore that aircraft may be deliberately sacrificed from being used to earn money for this "maybe we might save some compensation payout" game. Which I find to be ludicrous.

I think you are mistaking the "normal" downtime/slack that may exist in schedules - particularly for airlines that don't work their fleets as hard as some airlines do - and have mischaracterised it to be that airlines (which ones?) make "guesses" about when to have a spare aircraft based where.

Any airline that has a spare aircraft that can be used in an irrops situation will use that aircraft as and when they can. This was always the case.

Nothing has changed since EC261/2004 - unless you are seriously suggesting that some airlines (which?) now deliberately keep a spare plane/spare planes deployed around their network at all times JUST to keep EC261/2004 costs down. Deliberate under-utilisation of the fleet like that is going to lose more money than it could potentially save.

Originally Posted by Ldnn1
To give an example of a publicly available reference to standby aircraft just from a very quick google, the below is from easyJet’s 2014 annual report, p.35. I wouldn't describe easyJet as a 'ropey' airline:
That goes nowhere near as far as how you initially characterised this "strategy".

For a start, it says "Tight operational controls". Each airline should run their operations in a way such that avoidable delays and cancellations are minimised to begin with. "availability of standby aircraft and crew to minimise the potential incidence of claims" does NOT mean that there is even always one aircraft sitting on the tarmac somewhere PURPOSELY to be avaialble to minimise EC261/2004 claims. You certainly are not saying, I presume, that prior to 2004, easyjet just shrugged its shoulders and left its stranded passengers to make their own way home? A typical easyjet plane kept grounded for an entire day will have lost the company more in foregone potential revenue than it would save if it was able to be used to prevent paying out the typical EU shorthaul compensation for a cancelled full flight. And if it is based in the wrong place, it may not be able to be deployed quickly enough to prevent at least a partial compensation payout...so the strategy is certainly far from fool-proof.

Last edited by irishguy28; Jun 29, 2017 at 7:37 am
irishguy28 is offline  
Old Jun 29, 2017, 7:58 am
  #53  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Argentina
Posts: 40,170
Originally Posted by Worcester
Be fair Hiddy, it's alright for us on here as most of us have at least some idea of our rights. But then for a lot on here a couple of hundred is not a big deal. This rule would help infrequent travellers who BA (and many other airlines) often does let down by not informing them of their rights (or at best doing the absolute minimum).
I agree however that wasn't my point. I would have expected better from Which. Singling out BA without facts and figures to back up their claim as being the bad boy in all of this may give the consumer the wrong impression. The quote below looks to have been written by someone with an axe to grind.

British Airways is failing its passengers.
When youre hit by flight cancellations and delays,
we think airlines should step up and compensate you automatically.
BA hasnt. This is unacceptable.
HIDDY is offline  
Old Jun 29, 2017, 8:37 am
  #54  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,721
Originally Posted by irishguy28
Yes. But that is sorting out IRROPS. Something that airlines have always had to do, whether or not there was an EC261/2004 dimension added or not.

To suggest, as you did, that airlines are now keeping aircraft out of service and positioning these spare aircraft randomly (how could it be targetted?) solely because of the added cost burden of EC261/2004, is a completely different proposition. Were you saying that they are now trying to "predict" where the next EC261/2004 blowout may occur, and already have a spare craft (and potentially spare crew) on standby there?
Why would it be random? Standby aircraft are typically positioned at bases, obviously. The choice of which bases and whether they warrant a standby aircraft is, as a I said, a matter for ops. Some may position an aircraft at a particular base for one period and then move it to another base for another period, depending on where they think it will be most useful.

Originally Posted by irishguy28
So, again, you seem to be saying that aircraft are tactically deployed specifically because of the cost of EC261/2004 failures, and therefore that aircraft may be deliberately sacrificed from being used to earn money for this "maybe we might save some compensation payout" game. Which I find to be ludicrous.

I think you are mistaking the "normal" downtime/slack that may exist in schedules - particularly for airlines that don't work their fleets as hard as some airlines do - and have mischaracterised it to be that airlines (which ones?) make "guesses" about when to have a spare aircraft based where.
I’m not mistaking anything. I know what standby aircraft are. Shorthaul airilnes typically don’t have much downtime/slack in their schedules at all. They have high utilisation, so they need to make a business decision as to whether it’s worth having standby aircraft as backup or not.

Originally Posted by irishguy28

Any airline that has a spare aircraft that can be used in an irrops situation will use that aircraft as and when they can. This was always the case.

Nothing has changed since EC261/2004 - unless you are seriously suggesting that some airlines (which?) now deliberately keep a spare plane/spare planes deployed around their network at all times JUST to keep EC261/2004 costs down. Deliberate under-utilisation of the fleet like that is going to lose more money than it could potentially save.
Of course airlines may well have used standby aircraft before to mitigate IRROPS. But I find it bizarre that you think that EU261 hasn’t changed anything. Consider it very simply as follows:

- Predicted cost of IRROPS excl. EU261 = X
- Predicted cost of IRROPS incl. EU261 = X + Y
- Predicted cost of keeping an aircraft on standby = Z

It may well be that Z > X, but Z < X+Y. In that case, there was no business case for a particular standby aircraft before EU261, but EU261 swings the business case in favour of the standby. This is not fanciful. These business cases have been made and are real.

Originally Posted by irishguy28
That goes nowhere near as far as how you initially characterised this "strategy".

For a start, it says "Tight operational controls". Each airline should run their operations in a way such that avoidable delays and cancellations are minimised to begin with. "availability of standby aircraft and crew to minimise the potential incidence of claims" does NOT mean that there is even always one aircraft sitting on the tarmac somewhere PURPOSELY to be avaialble to minimise EC261/2004 claims. You certainly are not saying, I presume, that prior to 2004, easyjet just shrugged its shoulders and left its stranded passengers to make their own way home? A typical easyjet plane kept grounded for an entire day will have lost the company more in foregone potential revenue than it would save if it was able to be used to prevent paying out the typical EU shorthaul compensation for a cancelled full flight. And if it is based in the wrong place, it may not be able to be deployed quickly enough to prevent at least a partial compensation payout...so the strategy is certainly far from fool-proof.
No strategy is fool-proof. But yes I am saying that many airlines do indeed have aircraft that sit around – potentially all day – waiting to be deployed in the event that they’re needed. Not at every airport, not necessarily all season or every season, but yes, airlines do do this.
Ldnn1 is online now  
Old Jun 29, 2017, 9:13 am
  #55  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Brexile in ADB
Programs: BA, TK, HHonours, Le Club, Best Western Rewards
Posts: 7,067
How often do EU261 qualifying Irrops happen to an airline?
Worcester is offline  
Old Jun 29, 2017, 10:42 am
  #56  
Moderator, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges, and Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold; Flying Blue Life Platinum; LH Sen.; Hilton Diamond; Kemal Kebabs Prized Customer
Posts: 63,476
Originally Posted by Worcester
How often do EU261 qualifying Irrops happen to an airline?
It will vary by airline, clearly, depending on their operational performance. In the case of BA, normally the number of flights more than 3 hours late (or cancelled) and where the cause is not ATC / weather (etc) is well, well under 0.5% of flights. Now this year, with virtually a full day of no service at all, and another couple of days of impacted services, this is bound to head to a higher figure, but even then you can see you're still well below 1%.
corporate-wage-slave is offline  
Old Jun 29, 2017, 5:23 pm
  #57  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: London
Posts: 344
Originally Posted by UKtravelbear
1. the compensation is set in the regulation so unless the 3 EU institutions (Council, Commission and Parliament) agree to reduce them they will stay at 600 (just as there has been no increase since 2004!

2. Again no, the regulation would need to be re-written / amended plus those pesky judges would likely still get to do a few rulings (like they were the ones who said it applied to delays)


What does need to happen is the proposed amendments such as increasing the delay time from which it is due to be paid from. That really was unfair to the airlines to take a time period from 'duty of care' and apply it to delays.
I am aware of the law. However if you have an overnight 10-fold increase in the number of payout because they are automated, something will have to give and while that will, in part, be the airline industry the law might have to change too. The existing situation is all a bit arbitrary and poorly constructed and can be entirely unfair to airline and passenger depending on the circumstances, and all of that will come in to sharp focus when prices go up to fund the huge additional amounts that airlines will have to charge.
Bluebirdnick is offline  
Old Jun 29, 2017, 8:47 pm
  #58  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,438
Originally Posted by Bluebirdnick
I am aware of the law. However if you have an overnight 10-fold increase in the number of payout because they are automated, something will have to give and while that will, in part, be the airline industry the law might have to change too. The existing situation is all a bit arbitrary and poorly constructed and can be entirely unfair to airline and passenger depending on the circumstances, and all of that will come in to sharp focus when prices go up to fund the huge additional amounts that airlines will have to charge.
There I disagree. That airlines have been shirking their responsibilities in paying up only to those that hassle enough is wrong and should never have been the case

This would simply put the airlines at the position that they should have been at since the regulation was introduced. It is bad that the organisation responsible for enforcement has just done nothing previously
Dave Noble is offline  
Old Jun 29, 2017, 10:46 pm
  #59  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: YYC
Programs: BA bronze, Aeroplan peon
Posts: 4,735
Originally Posted by Bluebirdnick
I am aware of the law. However if you have an overnight 10-fold increase in the number of payout because they are automated, something will have to give and while that will, in part, be the airline industry the law might have to change too.
So you're saying that complying with the law is too expensive so airlines should ignore the law? Wasn't that exactly why EU261 came into existence?
Jagboi is offline  
Old Jun 30, 2017, 12:58 am
  #60  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Brexile in ADB
Programs: BA, TK, HHonours, Le Club, Best Western Rewards
Posts: 7,067
Also costs act as an incentive, if EU261 was applied to every eligible passenger you would find that airlines behavior would change. BA have a reputation on this board of not rebooking passengers on other airlines for example they may reconsider that. There might be more proactive maintenance, less cutbacks at the engineering center at LHR.
Worcester is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.