Guy Betsy

Honestly the only way to get to LYS is via AMS and that is probably the fastest way for you to get there. For delays such as this one, it is better to stay with one airline than to 'transfer' you to another. The KLM flight was not cancelled. If it was, then staff would have rebooked you on another flight say on LH but that would of course depend on availability.

In case you're wondering, taking AF would not have been any faster as I think the Singapore flight arrives at CDG and the LYS flights depart from Orly!

You only got delayed by 5 hours. What about those who have longer destinations to get to and were delayed by 20 hours. BTW, you may try to claim, but I recently just received my claim from a cancelled KL flight from HAM-AMS... in 2010 !

I got so fed up with all the faxes, letters, and emails that I couldn't be bothered with the claim anymore. But in the end KLM sent me 10 euros for my 'troubles'. Be prepared for a very long wait ! The court proceedings are still going through the 2011 delays from the Icelandic volcano eruption!

irishguy28

That's the problem. If it ends up that such compensation become payable when a "short" delay leads to a long wait because of "timetabling", then airlines might perhaps stop offering such tickets, or price their "insurance" into such connections.

I agree that airlines should not be allowed to randomly cancel fligths and muck passengers about. Assistance, accommodation, etc should be provided - but compensation should probably require a far higher threshold of inconvenience before it becomes due.

But going too far the other way could also have unintended (and customer-unfriendly) consequences.

johan rebel

If they regularly cannot deliver what they promise, then that would be an excellent idea.

Johan

irishguy28

Whoah! You seem to be advocating a shift to Ryanair's point-to-point model.

(One of the few airlines who would not be impacted by such "missed-connection-delays" as they don't sell through tickets!!!)

irishguy28

Actually, the more I think about it the more I wonder.

Most passengers buy through tickets because it comes with a degree of "protection" - if a connection is missed (for whatever reason), the airline is still obliged to get you to your destination.

If they are now also legally obliged to pay out compensation as well as getting a passenger to their destination, it makes through tickets less appealing for the airlines.

From the airline's standpoint: I still promise to get you to your destination on your through-ticket, but I now also face the possibility of having to pay you up to €600 on top if I cause you a delay that misses your onward connection. But if I'd forced you to buy two separate tickets, OR forced you to make a really long connection, I may have avoided ANY compensation, and you would have had to buy a new ticket to get to your final destination - more money for me! Of course, I may have shown you some sympathy and rebooked you onwards when you showed me the ticket for your missed flight - but that's what I would have done, anyway, had you bought it all as one ticket. But I escape the compensation payout!!! So from now on, I'm going to treble my minimum connection times (if I could make it 6 hours, then I could totally remove this additional exposure to compensation), or stop selling through tickets, or increase the cost of through tickets so that I can recoup enough to payout when I have to.

Centipede100

Or they could just try to ensure they operate pretty much to schedule, trying to minimise delays caused due to reasons within their control, and thereby not be liable for EU delay compensation. By so doing, they would be delivering a good reliable service to passengers who will wish to book with them again due to the service on offer! Simple really...

Verboten

Not so simple I'm afraid.

Firstly, many misconnections actually happen outside the airline's control, e.g. ATC, immigration. On these issues (which, to the best of my knowledge, are not considered as force majeure), the airline has only limited influence.

Secondly, requiring an unreasonably high assurance of reliability damages the business. For instance, having a turn-around time of 5 hours is certainly more reliable than 90 minutes but this significantly reduces the utilisation rate. What most airlines are doing is to strive for their own 'optimal' balance between risk and reliability.

Verboten

I can also imagine a case in the opposite (but admittedly I have not really worked it through):

Disclaimer: all letter combinations below are fictional.

Consider a day where KLM overbooks the AMS-LAX flight by 10, with 10 connecting passengers from DUS. If DUS-AMS is not delayed, you have 10 IDB's. So instead, KLM intentionally delay DUS-AMS for about 40 minutes, so that those connecting passengers would misconnect.

KLM still has to provide care but this way no compensation is due.

Centipede100

ATC and immigration issues are normally outside the airline's control and thus would almost certainly be considered "extraordinary circumstances". Indeed ATC is mentioned as such in Recital 15 to the Regulation.

The airlines' optimal or economic choice in other words. I did say 'trying to minimise delays caused due to reasons within their control, and thereby not be liable for EU delay compensation'.

If the 'optimal' balance strays too far to the riskier side then the airlines know what is likely to happen. Again it is their choice.

Centipede100

Bad example I think.

In your example the connecting DUS-AMS passengers would therefore be owed compensation for their delay via the misconnect.

johan rebel

And the EU reg. is there to ensure that this balance is not achieved at the pax' expense.

Johan

ulxima

Irishguy28
+1 on every single word you wrote so far

Ciao
Ulxima