'Which?' target BA for EC261 petition - please sign
#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!
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!
#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
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
#48
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brighton. UK
Programs: BA Gold / VS /IHG Diamond & Ambassador
Posts: 14,141
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.
#49
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Flying between BER, ZRH, EZE, COR
Programs: LH SEN, UA 1K, A3*G, AR Platino, BA Gold
Posts: 113
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.
#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.
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.
#52
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Netherlands
Programs: KL Platinum; A3 Gold
Posts: 28,550
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?
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.
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.
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:
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
#53
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Argentina
Posts: 40,170
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).
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.
When youre hit by flight cancellations and delays,
we think airlines should step up and compensate you automatically.
BA hasnt. This is unacceptable.
#54
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,721
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?
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?
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 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.
- 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.
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.
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.
#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
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%.
#57
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: London
Posts: 344
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.
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.
#58
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,438
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.
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
#59
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: YYC
Programs: BA bronze, Aeroplan peon
Posts: 4,735
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?
#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.