This is no way, AY - things to improve [feedback thread]
Jun 21, 2022, 9:59 am
#1786
Join Date: Aug 2019
Programs: AY+ Lumo, HH Diamond
Posts: 503
AMS could have hired enough staff and train them well in advance. They did not have to cut costs and pass the risk of a travel surge + staff shortage to the pax.
But they chose not to hire, and they chose to pass on their operational risk to pax.
So even if it's exceptional circumstances for the airline, it's not for the airport, and EC261 should be extended to make the airports pay usual EC261 compensation to the delayed pax. That should teach them to not cut costs and outsource their risks.
But they chose not to hire, and they chose to pass on their operational risk to pax.
So even if it's exceptional circumstances for the airline, it's not for the airport, and EC261 should be extended to make the airports pay usual EC261 compensation to the delayed pax. That should teach them to not cut costs and outsource their risks.
Jun 21, 2022, 3:41 pm
#1787
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: HEL
Programs: AYPlat, BASilver, SQG
Posts: 456
Is it more and more so that no pre-lunch/dinner drinks are served? Today on Norra HELFRA (19pax in J) it was straight to the salad (=food that is), sure there would have been enough time for predrinks.
Of course no problem to get drinks afterwards, but still it would be nice to have one before the meal.
Of course no problem to get drinks afterwards, but still it would be nice to have one before the meal.
Jun 21, 2022, 9:35 pm
#1788
Join Date: Nov 2017
Programs: MPC-DM, Enrich-Plat
Posts: 1,310
AY 1302 AMS-HEL at 11.55 landed six hours late. AMS is to be avoided this summer at all cost. Security took anything from 3 to 5 hours. Therefore at gate closing time A350 had 160 pax missing. Not me, but most were at security. Captain decided to wait. Every few minutes pax were showing up all sweaty and out of breath from running.. After two hours of waiting only about 30 were missing. But by then we had 9 hold luggages from people, who had gone home or missing. Ground handling didn´t come to offload for the next three hours. Finally left 6 hours later. "Food" had run out after maybe first hour of wait, same happended a few hours later for drinks. We spent 6 hours on the plane without moving. That´s a new record for me.
https://www.flightstats.com/v2/fligh...tId=1097063656
https://www.flightstats.com/v2/fligh...tId=1097063656
You were waiting at a remote dock, or connected at the airbridge ?
Anyway, the airlines do have a rule, they need to take care of the passengers, when there are significant delays (>2 hours for such a flight), did you get any further drinks, etc ?
Jun 22, 2022, 1:18 am
#1789
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 2,395
Captain waiting: Understandable, given ground handling availability to off-load bags would be limited, as showed reality, later on.
You were waiting at a remote dock, or connected at the airbridge ?
Anyway, the airlines do have a rule, they need to take care of the passengers, when there are significant delays (>2 hours for such a flight), did you get any further drinks, etc ?
You were waiting at a remote dock, or connected at the airbridge ?
Anyway, the airlines do have a rule, they need to take care of the passengers, when there are significant delays (>2 hours for such a flight), did you get any further drinks, etc ?
They really did their best in trying to order food and drinks, but personnel in AMS was not having anything done. What else could they do? Had they known it would take 6 hours, decisions would most likely had been different. The captain said that had it been 22 more minutes, their workday would have been too long. Remember, they left HEL the same morning. At arrival in HEL we were given 17 euro vouchers for restaurants, Alepa groceries or R-kiosk. Nice gesture.
Jun 22, 2022, 1:24 am
#1790
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Seat 1L these days :)
Programs: AF Platinum/AY LUMO/SK EBG/baEC S/HYATT Globalist/MR LTP/A3 *G/HH Dia/IHG plat
Posts: 7,962
Connected to an airbridge. Not allowed to leave to the gate area.
They really did their best in trying to order food and drinks, but personnel in AMS was not having anything done. What else could they do? Had they known it would take 6 hours, decisions would most likely had been different. The captain said that had it been 22 more minutes, their workday would have been too long. Remember, they left HEL the same morning. At arrival in HEL we were given 17 euro vouchers for restaurants, Alepa groceries or R-kiosk. Nice gesture.
They really did their best in trying to order food and drinks, but personnel in AMS was not having anything done. What else could they do? Had they known it would take 6 hours, decisions would most likely had been different. The captain said that had it been 22 more minutes, their workday would have been too long. Remember, they left HEL the same morning. At arrival in HEL we were given 17 euro vouchers for restaurants, Alepa groceries or R-kiosk. Nice gesture.
I wonder if they learned their lesson and stock extra provisions on future AMS flights? It seems AMS is a mess these days
Jun 22, 2022, 1:40 am
#1791
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Keskellä metsää
Programs: Onko teillä S-etukorttia?
Posts: 918
Jun 22, 2022, 2:32 am
#1793
Join Date: Aug 2019
Programs: AY+ Lumo, HH Diamond
Posts: 503
I am still a bit confused.
On one hand, it was Finnair's decision to wait. It was perfectly in Finnair's control to leave on time and avoid the delay, by leaving behind pax stuck at the airport. From Finnair's perspective this is no different to the pax just leaving home late, it's beyond their control anyway, and not really their responsibility.
On the other hand, it wasn't the pax fault either. Finnair pays AMS for ground services. Now these services were not delivered as-paid-for, so it's also between the airline and airport in this sense. No idea about the fine print and T&C of airline-airport contracts, though.
As EC261 currently stands, how I see it, Finnair here should pay delay compensation to those boarded on time because it was in Finnair's control to avoid the delay but they chose not to avoid the delay. The pax missing the flight stuck at the airport should seek compensation from the airport and or travel insurance. Ideally EC261 would be extended to hold airports liable too. Now it's a kind of loophole where airlines dump everything to airports' fault, and airports are not liable to pax.
On one hand, it was Finnair's decision to wait. It was perfectly in Finnair's control to leave on time and avoid the delay, by leaving behind pax stuck at the airport. From Finnair's perspective this is no different to the pax just leaving home late, it's beyond their control anyway, and not really their responsibility.
On the other hand, it wasn't the pax fault either. Finnair pays AMS for ground services. Now these services were not delivered as-paid-for, so it's also between the airline and airport in this sense. No idea about the fine print and T&C of airline-airport contracts, though.
As EC261 currently stands, how I see it, Finnair here should pay delay compensation to those boarded on time because it was in Finnair's control to avoid the delay but they chose not to avoid the delay. The pax missing the flight stuck at the airport should seek compensation from the airport and or travel insurance. Ideally EC261 would be extended to hold airports liable too. Now it's a kind of loophole where airlines dump everything to airports' fault, and airports are not liable to pax.
Jun 22, 2022, 3:42 am
#1794
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: HEL
Programs: AY Plat Lumo, SK Gold
Posts: 954
Finnair decided to wait for a while, but the major delay came from unloading the baggage of the no-show passengers. You could argue that unloading baggage falls under the responsibility of the airline, as they can choose whom they buy their ground handling services from, but I guess at least the Finnish courts would rule in a case like this that the delay was beyond the control of the airline.
Jun 22, 2022, 3:47 am
#1795
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: HEL
Programs: AY Platinum, TK Elite, BT VIP, AA, BA, SK, DL, NT, WB + hotels
Posts: 8,756
While it is AY's decision to wait, if in reality they have a zero chance to offload the bags, then it boils down to ground handling again. However, groundhandling (as in baggage handling or check-in) is the airline's responsibility whereas security control is not.
I believe AY will deny all EC261 claims and go to court if need be, and I further believe that a Finnish court may very well decide in their favour. But whether pax really are EC261 eligible, I can't say.
The 17 EUR voucher at the end of the flight was a nice gesture in lieu of refreshments, though.
I believe AY will deny all EC261 claims and go to court if need be, and I further believe that a Finnish court may very well decide in their favour. But whether pax really are EC261 eligible, I can't say.
The 17 EUR voucher at the end of the flight was a nice gesture in lieu of refreshments, though.
Jun 22, 2022, 3:49 am
#1796
Join Date: Aug 2019
Programs: AY+ Lumo, HH Diamond
Posts: 503
Finnair decided to wait for a while, but the major delay came from unloading the baggage of the no-show passengers. You could argue that unloading baggage falls under the responsibility of the airline, as they can choose whom they buy their ground handling services from, but I guess at least the Finnish courts would rule in a case like this that the delay was beyond the control of the airline.
So, at most, Finnair pays EC261compensations as it should, and then starts a separate claim against the ground services whose non-delivery caused Finnair this damage. Finnair trusted that the ground services will deliver, and so that it's ok to wait a bit, but then their failure to hire enough staff caused further damages to Finnair.
It's outrageous when they always report "it's difficult / impossible to hire staff". It's not difficult at all. Offer enough salary and you'll have a line of people coming to work. They always leave that part out, that nobody wants to work for their slave wages. But that is just their business operational decision, to maximise profits with increased risks of possible service delivery failures as a result of not being able to run their operation with the too small budgets that go to profit maximisation, and that comes then with liability to compensate when the risks materialise. But they just want increased profits without risks or the risks outsourced to someone else.
Jun 22, 2022, 4:01 am
#1797
Join Date: Aug 2019
Programs: AY+ Lumo, HH Diamond
Posts: 503
It's no different to airline deciding to use just one plane say in the morning HEL-ARN return and then in the afternoon HEL-MUC return, say. If ARN airport wanted to maximise profits and not hire enough staff, which delays HEL-ARN, and knock on delays HEL-MUC later, it was the airline's choice in the first place to optimise the plane usage like that and expose to unnecessary risks. It was in their control to not optimise plane usage like that, but instead make sure each separate flight has a plane ready. Now the airline wanted to increase profits by assuming increased risk. The airline will then be EC261 liable for HEL-MUC delays because it was in their control to not over-optimise plane usage schedules; instead they decided to play optimisation games. Knock-on delays are not "extraordinary circumstances".
Jun 22, 2022, 6:05 am
#1798
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 2,395
No compensation. An automated message claiming extraordinary circumstances.
Tämä on automaattinen viesti Finnairin asiakaspalvelusta.
Hyvä asiakas
Kiitos, että otit yhteyttä Finnairin asiakaspalveluun koskien lentoasi Amsterdam - Helsinki ( AY1302) 20.06.2022 . Pahoittelemme lentosi häiriötä.
Lento viivästyi lentokentän turvatarkastuksen ruuhkan vuoksi. Lisämyöhästymisen aiheutti lennolta jääneiden matkustajien matkatavaroiden purkaminen koneesta.
Koska viivästyminen johtuu poikkeuksellisista olosuhteista, korvausta ei makseta.
Matkustajalla ei ole oikeutta saada EU-asetuksen mukaisia korvauksia, jos viivästyminen johtuu poikkeuksellisista olosuhteista, joihin Finnair ei olisi voinut vaikuttaa, vaikka kaikki kohtuudella edellytettävät toimenpiteet olisi toteutettu.
Tämä on automaattinen viesti Finnairin asiakaspalvelusta.
Hyvä asiakas
Kiitos, että otit yhteyttä Finnairin asiakaspalveluun koskien lentoasi Amsterdam - Helsinki ( AY1302) 20.06.2022 . Pahoittelemme lentosi häiriötä.
Lento viivästyi lentokentän turvatarkastuksen ruuhkan vuoksi. Lisämyöhästymisen aiheutti lennolta jääneiden matkustajien matkatavaroiden purkaminen koneesta.
Koska viivästyminen johtuu poikkeuksellisista olosuhteista, korvausta ei makseta.
Matkustajalla ei ole oikeutta saada EU-asetuksen mukaisia korvauksia, jos viivästyminen johtuu poikkeuksellisista olosuhteista, joihin Finnair ei olisi voinut vaikuttaa, vaikka kaikki kohtuudella edellytettävät toimenpiteet olisi toteutettu.
Jun 22, 2022, 6:06 am
#1799
Join Date: Aug 2019
Programs: AY+ Lumo, HH Diamond
Posts: 503
Well, just because Finnair claims exceptional circumstances is no evidence for actual exceptional circumstances. I've explained in my posts above how Finnair's claim is void.
Whether to fight it in court is totally another matter. I can only wish KRIL got more power, and that the EC slapped substantial fines on delinquent airlines. I personally would take this to KRIL, justifying as above and remembering that the burden of proof is on Finnair, not me.
Whether to fight it in court is totally another matter. I can only wish KRIL got more power, and that the EC slapped substantial fines on delinquent airlines. I personally would take this to KRIL, justifying as above and remembering that the burden of proof is on Finnair, not me.
Jun 22, 2022, 6:15 am
#1800
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Seat 1L these days :)
Programs: AF Platinum/AY LUMO/SK EBG/baEC S/HYATT Globalist/MR LTP/A3 *G/HH Dia/IHG plat
Posts: 7,962
Well, just because Finnair claims exceptional circumstances is no evidence for actual exceptional circumstances. I've explained in my posts above how Finnair's claim is void.
Whether to fight it in court is totally another matter. I can only wish KRIL got more power, and that the EC slapped substantial fines on delinquent airlines. I personally would take this to KRIL, justifying as above and remembering that the burden of proof is on Finnair, not me.
Whether to fight it in court is totally another matter. I can only wish KRIL got more power, and that the EC slapped substantial fines on delinquent airlines. I personally would take this to KRIL, justifying as above and remembering that the burden of proof is on Finnair, not me.
just saying 😁