You think?:)

I see your point but I don't agree with it, and the KLM case is a good example.

The EU regulation makes a clear distinction between delays and cancellation or overbooking. It states that in a delay situation the airline has a duty of care (i.e. refreshment, communication and accommodation depending on the length of the flight and the duration of the delay), but not a requirement to offer financial recompense. However in cases of cancellation or involuntary reroute there is a duty to offer financial compensation in addition to the duty of care. The reasoning behind this is that delays are usually unforeseen while cancellations and overbooking are usually a result of elective action by the airline.

Using your example of KLM: the problem is that “…they have not scheduled enough maintanance (sic) downtime for their fleet. You can bet they will think twice about such scheduling in the future.” KLM have chosen a maintenance schedule that causes the problems. This leads to long delays (inconvenient) and cancellations (that trigger hefty compensation payments).

In the OP’s case, if the 4.5hr delay happened on an EU flight, then the OP could have claimed for refreshments and communication at the time, but there is no requirement of compensation under EU law. DL’s offer of $100 as a goodwill gesture looks pretty generous.

I'm amazed at all the venom directed at the OP for being "greedy"! What he actually posted was: Note, he didn't turn down the $100 voucher as inadequate but was told that he was entitled to more than that. The OP has a very low post count and displays no indication of frequent flyer status on DL or any other airline. He probably had little idea of what the correct or expected procedures were in such a case.

Of course he now regrets not taking the $100 when it was offered, but there is no indication he refused it because he is greedy. He also wasn't posting a complaint. His only request in fact was: After being tarred as "greedy" and "stupid" so many times here, he probably regrets even asking for our clarification.

Please note that I never referred to the OP as greedy or stupid.

Mechanical delays are a fact of modern air travel in the US. The airlines are fighting to survive and cannot be expected to have spare aircraft at every airport.

I was simply making a broad statement that in this country these days, everyone expects compensation for every little inconvenience. It's depressing to see.

No, you did not. Others did that.I can understand that, but the OP is one individual looking for information, not a member of a huge class of people looking for some windfall compensation. In fact, he wasn't even complaining, but just asking for an explanation of what happened and what is supposed to happen in such an instance.

OK, I will agree with you there. :)

Thank you for telling me what I wasn't thinking. (sardonic sarcasm)

It's comments like yours that make me value the witty banter that we see on FT. (jocular irony)

To be pedantic, my comment was in response to a coment by spgaston that I found objectionable: "I think mandatory compensation (along with not wanting an accident) should be motivation for keeping the aircraft in top mechanical condition." This post appears to place the provision of compensation above, or on a par with, the provision of safety and I find that suggestion distasteful.

I chose to express my distaste by restating a rhetorical question from another post that, IMO, clearly highlighted this issue. Thus the sentiment behind my comment clearly evoked the lowest form of wit. Sorry it that didn't come across clearly. (sarcasm)

While I don't feel the poster was "entitled" to anything, I don't understand why the airlines are so reluctant to provide some goodwill vouchers toward discounts off future travel or offer some compensatory frequent flyer miles in a situation like this. The flight was delayed 4.5 hours due to an airline-related issue, so why not show the customers you still care about their business? The cost to the airline is minimal, as chances are a fair number of the discount vouchers will never be redeemed, and furthermore, they potentially retain future business from passengers who might otherwise choose not to fly with that airline again. Why are the airlines so reluctant to try to make amends when they mess up? It really seems like the US airline industry mentality (at least at the legacies) is to take care of the loyal frequent flyers, but to screw over everyone else. The mentality seems to be that there are "plenty of fish in the sea," meaning that they will be able to keep augmenting their passenger base at a rate that compensates for the loss of business due to poor service. The problem is that they potentially alientate future frequent flyers through this practice of providing poor service to non-elite passengers.

I'm curious to know how many airlines (both domestic and International) can offer you compensation at your first point of contact over the phone? Many of them will tell you to write in if you want something. By the way good tying to get compensation from AF AZ.

That's ridiculous, but at least thesaurus.com and wikipedia got some hits.

Taunting someone for not answering a rhetorical question to which only a fool would respond is the lowest form alright, but no wit (either meaning) is involved.

In no other industry can a service provider sell a service and then fail to deliver without consequences. I realize that the contract is written to protect the carrier, and they are within their legal rights to refuse compensation for delays, but that doesnt make it right. The fact that mechanical delays are inevitable is exactly the point, carriers should anticipate this and allocate sufficient backups so as to minimize delays. An excessive delay due to mechanical failure is indicative of a larger mistake for which the customer should be compensated.

Given the similairity between the various airline's terms of carriage and fine print I think there is a reasonable claim of industry collusion, otherwise we would see carriers competing on this point! The lack of prosecution is simply
indicative of the industries lobbying power. Ultimatly attempts to gain compensation for airline incompetence is nothing more then a very feeble attempt to reclaim some of what we are owed.

If I order a pizza from Domino's and it takes 2 hours to arrive, Domino's risks the consequence that I will order from Papa John's or Pizza Hut next time. If DL screws up, it risks the consequence that I will choose another carrier next time. @:-)

So do people ask Amtrak for compensation when the trains experience a mechanical delay? When your limo/car driver shows up late due to a flat tire on the way to pick you up, do you expect compensation?

I think this quote neatly summarises something about 'entitlement culture' that I don't understand.

Planes take off with all sorts of minor glitches every day. Indeed the ADD (Acceptable Deferred Defect) list on a widebody can reach run to over 100 items. None of these faults will stop the flight from operating safely and most passengers will accept the inconvenience of a non-functional reading light for the opportunity to get from A to B.

If a mechanical problem is sufficiently serious to warrant immediate repair then it's probably safe to assume that continuing with the defect could potentially have catastrophic consequences. At this point the airlines attempt to rectify the problem. The post blithely talks about 'allocating sufficient backups' as though this were a simple matter. But at what cost? Common causes of mechanical delays include burst tyres and foreign object damage which can occur at any airport. While DL may have backup at its hubs, what about at other stations? Even where backup is available, a spare plane will usually be at a remote location on a maintenance base and crews will either be at home or waiting away from the airport.

We happily take for granted the ability to travel by air but the operational reality is that this is a hard business. Planes face the punishing ordeal of taking off and landing on each journey and, as yet, we don't have the ability to guarantee that these processes will not damage some key system on the plane. When that happens, and it inevitably will, then I wouldn't want to get on that plane until it's fixed. I also wouldn't want to put pressure on the airline to cut corners to avoid making mandatory compensation payments for the delay. We all take safety for granted (how many people watch the onboard safety briefings?) and moan when things go wrong. Yet we expect to be able to fly where we want, when we want for next to nothing. I just don't get it.

Exactly my point for two reasons.

1. If an airline cut corners to avoid compensation payments (and hopefully they wouldn't) the consequences would be severe.

2. The airlines (such as KLM) may already be doing so with regards to over-scheduling their fleet and not allowing for enough routine maintanance time which would avert at least some of the mechanical delays.

cancelled flight due to mechanical, compensation? can I get mileage credit for orig?
 

Delta flight was cancelled due to irregular ops (mechanical), rerouted on a different airline, can I still get mileage credit for original itinerary and what kind of compensation can I expect?