TabTraveller

All of these things cost money. What we are talking about here is increasing BA's costs significantly. Now, can BA take these costs on the chin? Perhaps. Could other smaller, less financially secure airlines? Almost certainly not. Do we really want to be stifling competition through unnecessary regulation? There is a thriving market in claims management companies who will do all the work for consumers for a fee. If you can't be bothered to even engage a no win no fee company to chase for you then you probably can't be bothered to give BA your bank details.

streetmagix

BA are an airline. If they can't afford maintenance and EU261 maybe they should do something less taxing like making paper plates or selling lemonade at a village fete.

These costs are associated with all airlines, I dare say that EasyJet and RyanAir having younger, standardised fleets spend less on maintenance and have fewer tech issues. It was a business decision of BA to keep their older planes running so they should shoulder that extra cost.

Lets not forget that IAG made €1.8bn (Ł1.4bn) in 2016 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35662763).

TabTraveller

Perhaps you should consider reading past the first sentence of a post before firing off an ill-considered reply?

streetmagix

I did, you stated that people would be too lazy to file claims. I'm claiming that BA should be doing better. You shouldn't have to go to a law firm to get compensation that a company should be paying by law.

You also stated that it could cause smaller airlines to go bust. That is a possibility but regulation affects all airlines equally. Monarch don't run to different rules than BA just because they are smaller.

These aren't unnecessary regulations, in fact I think they should be extended and improved upon. Baggage losses/delays should be included for instance.

As you can probably tell I don't have a lot of sympathy for companies making Ł1bn+ a year and who regularly bend/break EU law.

IAN-UK

Oh no! A​​​​​ retreat behind the confidentiality screen 😱

Good airlines, large airlines, have always kept odd aircraft on standby, or had charter arrangements on hand to alleviate the impacts of delays and technical outs.

That was the situation before current consumer-focussed legislation kicked in. Even easyJet would haul in leased aircraft to take up the slack. It was one of the costs of doing business.

To suggest that airlines are going to position valuable assets around their networks, presumably with crew parked in hotels itching to leap into action to save the company compensation payments, is fanciful.

The Which? plan errs on the fanciful side too. But to damn it because it would lead to a carrier meeting its legal obligations in full is bizarre.

The tired argument involving the impact on fares was spread widely when the legislation was introduced: yet fares appear to have dropped significantly since then.

Dave Noble

It is not an unnecessary regulation. It was introduced because of the attitude of airlines towards passengers. Certain airlines, including BA, seem to do their best to avoid complying with the regulation. Forcing airlines to give the compensation when it is due, rather than only to those persevering through application, denial, claiming again etc seems a very sensible thing

The compensation is not supposed to be limited to those that force through the denials

From what I see, it is not new regulation but attempting to enforce the existing one

Ldnn1

Seriously, ask someone who works for an airline.

To suggest that EU261 hasn't had an impact on decisions as to whether and how many aircraft to have on standby is fanciful.

Worcester

Wasn't enough to persuade BA to have decent back up IT systems or for example to cancel one of its two IST flights every other day for a couple of weeks and try and put people off claiming by saying it was "exceptional circumstances" but paying out when they took it further.

As stated before how long before this culture spreads into engineering and other critical safety areas. I think this year has shown the regard BA/IAG management has for the long term.

TabTraveller

The company should only pay you the compensation if you claim it. There is no bending/breaking of EU law in not paying people who do not bother to claim.

The proposal to make compensation payments automatic is unnecessary. It will increase costs for airlines. You highlight my argument perfectly when you say that it affects all airlines equally.

You say "well BA is making Ł1bn+ per year so they can afford to pay compensation or have aircraft standing by, etc.". I say, that's great but airline margins are razor thin and the industry is highly cyclical. Do we really want the likes of flybe and monarch to be driven out of business due to the spiralling cost of regulation? This is bad for passengers, bad for airlines and bad for shareholders.

TabTraveller

EC261 isn't unnecessary; I didn't suggest that it was. I said it was unnecessary for compensation payouts to be made automatic. The current regulations do not require payouts to be automatic so this does involve changing the regulations rather than changing enforcement of them, as you state.

You say BA seems to "do their best to avoid complying with the regulation". Do you have any evidential basis for making this claim? Or is this just your opinion based on... what exactly?

Worcester

Was this not the argument the airlines used when EU261 was first muted?

The problem with BA and TK (the two airlines I have experienced this with) is that they lie. They say EU261 is not due when it is, and if you push hard you get them to cough up, but why should we have to spend time and effort to get them to compile with the law. Raffles had a interesting article on this today. Here.

Kgmm77

How about, for a starter, the manner in which they discharge their responsibilities to make you aware of the Regulations by placing a small font, closely typed "notice" behind a box of luggage tags at a check in desk many passengers don't use anyway.

Compare that with the lengths they go to upsell upgrades, hotels and other "add-ons" during the online booking process and in the run up to a flight.

I hope you own a lot of BA shares as to suggest your view is pro-passenger is laughable.

subject2load

.

Under discussion here is a proposal that airlines should be required to become more pro-active and efficient in meeting their EC261 obligations to the consumer. The core objective is to ensure that the disproportionate time and effort currently expended by many claimants in resolving associated claims is shifted back - fairly & squarely - from victims of service failure to the organisations actually responsible for it.

It really is hard to believe that anyone other than the airlines could see this as other than a welcome development ; until, that is, you're reminded that there is seemingly no limit to the level to which some folk (a comparatively small number, it should be said) will go to protect and defend BA, even where that involves taking a wholly irrational stance. None more so than in this particular scenario, where the reasoning put forward by loyal BA supporters is about as spurious as the excuses often used by the airline itself to frustrate, delay, or even deny legitimate claims.

nallison

Some bizarre responses here essentially saying 'let BA keep breaking the law'.

Maybe automatic payment isn't necessary, but how about just being honest in the first instance when people claim? And actually telling passengers their rights when there are IRROPs. I'm not sure how anyone can defend that and then say people who don't claim don't deserve it.

Anyone maintaining BA don't lie to avoid paying out either lives in fairy land or isn't being honest themselves. Countless first hand reports of BA giving false information about the reasons for a delay.

As for those saying, it's not fair they're picking on BA, well sadly it's the price they pay for being the national carrier.

I doubt the amounts would be eye watering. What percentage of flights are subject to the regulation? What's the average fare? I imagine a couple of dollars a ticket would cover it, considering claims already paid, which I would gladly pay to actually be sure of my rights.

Ldnn1

This is actually a good example of the broader point. EU261 made the cost of the IT fiasco significantly higher than it otherwise would have been.

Now, in the aftermath, BA management will obviously be looking at the IT systems and considering what could/should be done to prevent it happening again.

One solution may be cheap but less likely to prevent a repeat. The other solution might be more expensive but more likely to prevent a repeat.

Because of EU261, the cost of a repeat is greater than it would be without EU261, therefore the business case for the more robust solution is clearly stronger than it would be without EU261.

That doesn't mean the more expensive solution will get chosen. Or even the less expensive one for that matter. BA might well decide that no money should be spent at all.

But it's blatantly obvious that EU261 has a material impact on costs of IRROPS to the business and is factored into the decision-making about how to avoid and mitigate them.

To reiterate, I am not saying the impact of EU261 is a bad thing at all. I am simply highlighting that it has an impact.