Should compensation be extended?
Apr 7, 2019, 6:54 am
#46
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,271
That might have been true had EC 261/2004 been enforced as intended and written. But with judges at the national and especially CJEU level tinkering with the economics and operations of something about which they know nothing, delay compensation has become government-mandated insurance, not a means of improving on time performance.
If the EU were serious about ontime performance, it would abandon this Regulation and simply impose fines on carriers for delayed flights and deposit those fines in a fund available to improve the EU air carrier network.
If the EU were serious about ontime performance, it would abandon this Regulation and simply impose fines on carriers for delayed flights and deposit those fines in a fund available to improve the EU air carrier network.
Apr 7, 2019, 8:57 am
#47
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: VPS
Programs: IHG Diamond, Delta PM, Hilton Gold, Accor Gold, Marriott Silver
Posts: 7,263
That might have been true had EC 261/2004 been enforced as intended and written. But with judges at the national and especially CJEU level tinkering with the economics and operations of something about which they know nothing, delay compensation has become government-mandated insurance, not a means of improving on time performance.
.
.
Apr 7, 2019, 9:36 am
#48
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: LHR Air Traffic Control
Programs: BAEC Silver
Posts: 875
Only if fines apply for those arriving early too. Things would all work a lot more smoothly if that were the case.
Apr 7, 2019, 11:42 am
#49
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Dundee
Programs: BA Plastic. HH Diamond. Speedwell Bar Lifetime Platinum.
Posts: 1,424
Delay Repay on the railways is also based on arrival times not departure. On most trains there would be no compensation for a 20min delayed arrival either. (some offer something for a 15m delay though). Furthermore may of the longer train routes also build in time into their schedules to allow for delays so as to "arrive" on time.
The Working Timetable differs from the Public Timetable, where times at certain points are measured down to quarter
Last edited by BlueThroughCrimp; Apr 8, 2019 at 5:23 am
Apr 7, 2019, 7:10 pm
#50
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: NT Australia
Programs: QF WP
Posts: 4,159
IIRC the last proposal to update EU261 actually proposed increasing the time allowed before compensation was paid rather than reducing it. I think it was 5 hours minimum for band 1 flights (<1500km) in recognition that the current (court imposed) time frames for delays were too tight.
But there is only so much efficiency an airline can improve upon to reduce delays.
Get passengers on the jet way slightly earlier to that they can board the instant the crew is ready leads to complaints 'why were we stood waiting when we could have sat at the gate?'
But there is only so much efficiency an airline can improve upon to reduce delays.
Get passengers on the jet way slightly earlier to that they can board the instant the crew is ready leads to complaints 'why were we stood waiting when we could have sat at the gate?'
Maybe it’s a chicken and egg thing anyway, as we all know rail company timetables are hugely padded to make the trains run on time.
Apr 7, 2019, 10:31 pm
#51
Join Date: Feb 2018
Programs: Mucci, BAEC Silver, IHG Platinum Elite
Posts: 1,037
On one of today's arrivals terminating at Aberdeen from King's Cross, there was 14½ minutes built in to the schedule for either pathing allowance at junctions, engineering allowance for temporary speed restrictions, or performance allowance.
The Working Timetable differs from the Public Timetable, where times at certain points are measured down to quarter seconds, and the times can be also different, such as an arrival may say 1819 in the public timetable, but will be 1817 in the WTT.
The Working Timetable differs from the Public Timetable, where times at certain points are measured down to quarter seconds, and the times can be also different, such as an arrival may say 1819 in the public timetable, but will be 1817 in the WTT.
Apr 8, 2019, 2:11 am
#52
Moderator: British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Jan 2009
Programs: Battleaxe Alliance
Posts: 22,127
Missing elephants somewhere? There often isn't much (if any) competition on a railway route, and usually no traffic congestion either, and air travel and train travel are completely different, with very different set of risks, costs to operators, and environment, besides the fact that one flies and the other (hopefully) doesn't.
Just as an illustration
£28.26 for Reading to Paddington by train is the lowest fare I can find for 6 May at around 07:00. If it's delayed, you might get up to the value of the ticket for a delay, but the train company does not seem to lose any more than the fare even for very long delays.
Lowest BA fare for LHR-MAN on 6 May around 07:00 is £63.44. £28.44 is for APD (£13.00) and airport-imposed Passenger Service Charge (£15.44), so BA gets £35.00. If it's delayed by more than 2 hours, you might get €250. That's c. £215 at the current exchange rate. So, it might cost the airline £180 if it's delayed by 2 hours, plus the hotel and transport if it's an overnight delay, potentially amounting to more than £300 to the airline, while airlines' cost per seat is far higher than those of trains. That is a substantial penalty.
They are two completely different modes of transport with very different problems with completely different cost structures and treating the two the same would not make much sense.
Those of you wishing to introduce penalties for smaller delays in addition to what's already available as compensations should perhaps think of the following potential complications:
- Possibility of airline failures or simply not starting them/route so there is reduced competition, resulting in higher fares
- Simply putting the fares up to allow for compensations
- A lot fewer people being able to afford to fly as a consequence
- Withdrawing benefits (e.g. lounges) for less profitable fares to allow for compensations
- Unrealistically long scheduled flight time to allow for delays
Demand more at your own risk. Compensations are already extremely generous, particularly on cheap tickets. Demanding more might just seriously inconvenience you through unintended consequences.
(Just as a note, I normally allow at least 4 hours of delay for short haul and 12 hours for long haul flights, and 60 minutes for trains in my schedule, in the absence of adverse weather conditions or any other known factors that might affect things, and longer in potential adverse weather conditions etc. It reduces my stress level. I just happen to be aware that from time to time operational reality is such that on-time arrival doesn't happen, and I allow MORE time if I am in a hurry to get there and have to make sure I do, because missed connection consequences may be worse than allowing extra connection time* But then, I have a job that I can often work on anywhere with a good level of privacy, so the connection time is often not wasted)
Just as an illustration
£28.26 for Reading to Paddington by train is the lowest fare I can find for 6 May at around 07:00. If it's delayed, you might get up to the value of the ticket for a delay, but the train company does not seem to lose any more than the fare even for very long delays.
Lowest BA fare for LHR-MAN on 6 May around 07:00 is £63.44. £28.44 is for APD (£13.00) and airport-imposed Passenger Service Charge (£15.44), so BA gets £35.00. If it's delayed by more than 2 hours, you might get €250. That's c. £215 at the current exchange rate. So, it might cost the airline £180 if it's delayed by 2 hours, plus the hotel and transport if it's an overnight delay, potentially amounting to more than £300 to the airline, while airlines' cost per seat is far higher than those of trains. That is a substantial penalty.
They are two completely different modes of transport with very different problems with completely different cost structures and treating the two the same would not make much sense.
Those of you wishing to introduce penalties for smaller delays in addition to what's already available as compensations should perhaps think of the following potential complications:
- Possibility of airline failures or simply not starting them/route so there is reduced competition, resulting in higher fares
- Simply putting the fares up to allow for compensations
- A lot fewer people being able to afford to fly as a consequence
- Withdrawing benefits (e.g. lounges) for less profitable fares to allow for compensations
- Unrealistically long scheduled flight time to allow for delays
Demand more at your own risk. Compensations are already extremely generous, particularly on cheap tickets. Demanding more might just seriously inconvenience you through unintended consequences.
(Just as a note, I normally allow at least 4 hours of delay for short haul and 12 hours for long haul flights, and 60 minutes for trains in my schedule, in the absence of adverse weather conditions or any other known factors that might affect things, and longer in potential adverse weather conditions etc. It reduces my stress level. I just happen to be aware that from time to time operational reality is such that on-time arrival doesn't happen, and I allow MORE time if I am in a hurry to get there and have to make sure I do, because missed connection consequences may be worse than allowing extra connection time* But then, I have a job that I can often work on anywhere with a good level of privacy, so the connection time is often not wasted)
Last edited by LTN Phobia; Apr 8, 2019 at 3:50 am
Apr 8, 2019, 3:09 am
#53
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Dundee
Programs: BA Plastic. HH Diamond. Speedwell Bar Lifetime Platinum.
Posts: 1,424
Absolutely. Complain about (seriously) late arrivals, but to complain about late departures, and a slight late arrival? No.