Why Swiss is acting against the law?
Apr 17, 2010, 12:17 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Warsaw, PL
Posts: 272
Why Swiss is acting against the law?
Can anyone explain why Swiss is acting against the law?
Saying: "We would like to point out, for good order’s sake, that SWISS is not liable for any further claims, such as overnight accommodation or any compensatory damage amounts. This is because the flights concerned have had to be cancelled for force majeure reasons, and not through any fault on SWISS’s part." Swiss acts against EU261/2004 regulation.
That's totally unacceptable from the company who wants to be perceived as reliable partner in business.
Saying: "We would like to point out, for good order’s sake, that SWISS is not liable for any further claims, such as overnight accommodation or any compensatory damage amounts. This is because the flights concerned have had to be cancelled for force majeure reasons, and not through any fault on SWISS’s part." Swiss acts against EU261/2004 regulation.
That's totally unacceptable from the company who wants to be perceived as reliable partner in business.
Last edited by egon.olsen; Apr 17, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Apr 17, 2010, 3:12 pm
#4
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: NJ
Posts: 3,335
This emergency just points out the idiocy of the EU law making air carriers liable for overnight accomodations when weather or volcano "act of god" delays are completely beyond their control.
My guess is that we will see the law repealed shortly, given the losses which the airlines are experiencing as a result of this natural disaster.
My guess is that we will see the law repealed shortly, given the losses which the airlines are experiencing as a result of this natural disaster.
Apr 17, 2010, 3:20 pm
#5
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Warsaw, PL
Posts: 272
That's another point, and in my opinion, yesterday this regulation should have been suspended. But if it's still legal, all parties involved should obey those rules, and should not publish claims that are against the law.
Last edited by egon.olsen; Apr 17, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Apr 17, 2010, 3:31 pm
#6
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: ZRH, Switzerland
Programs: M&M, Fan of MO, Shangri-La.
Posts: 687
This emergency just points out the idiocy of the EU law making air carriers liable for overnight accomodations when weather or volcano "act of god" delays are completely beyond their control.
My guess is that we will see the law repealed shortly, given the losses which the airlines are experiencing as a result of this natural disaster.
My guess is that we will see the law repealed shortly, given the losses which the airlines are experiencing as a result of this natural disaster.
>> Please note that the same question has been asked in the Swiss Lurker Forum, so I hope we see an official reply there. (Sticky Thread)
Apr 17, 2010, 3:44 pm
#7
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,859
This emergency just points out the idiocy of the EU law making air carriers liable for overnight accomodations when weather or volcano "act of god" delays are completely beyond their control.
My guess is that we will see the law repealed shortly, given the losses which the airlines are experiencing as a result of this natural disaster.
My guess is that we will see the law repealed shortly, given the losses which the airlines are experiencing as a result of this natural disaster.
Plus, I bet airlines will turn to their respective governments for aid.
Apr 17, 2010, 3:47 pm
#8
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,051
It's exactly situations like this why the law should protect the passengers. A stranded pax is in a way worse (logistically and economically) situation then any airlines with their reciprocal deals and insurance.
Plus, I bet airlines will turn to their respective governments for aid.
Plus, I bet airlines will turn to their respective governments for aid.
Apr 17, 2010, 3:56 pm
#9
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Scottsdale
Posts: 2,949
It's exactly situations like this why the law should protect the passengers. A stranded pax is in a way worse (logistically and economically) situation then any airlines with their reciprocal deals and insurance.
Plus, I bet airlines will turn to their respective governments for aid.
Plus, I bet airlines will turn to their respective governments for aid.
A passenger who spent a few hundred Euros on airfare, could easily require thousands in compensation. Multiply this by millions of stranded passengers, and the numbers quickly become unmanageable.
Apr 17, 2010, 3:57 pm
#10
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,859
Sympathetically, I'm with the strandees. But realistically, the airlines aren't in that good shape. I'd say if the condition of the market were more sane, yes, they should pay. But somewhere back, Mr Alfred Kahn decided that cutthroat competition would be the best for everybody. That notion seeped out into the world and things haven't been the same since.
Plus, airlines should be pretty well protected by their insurers, whilst many passengers are not, or only to a limited extend.
Compensation isn't due on this occasion.
Apr 17, 2010, 4:08 pm
#11
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Warsaw, PL
Posts: 272
Dura lex, sed lex. If I make a fraud I go to jail. Simple as it is. But please explain why should it be any different for an airline?
Apr 17, 2010, 4:20 pm
#12
Join Date: Feb 2005
Programs: DL DM+5MM, AAGold MM, UA 1K+2MM, BA GGL,LH Senator, SPG Plat, HH Diamond, HY Plat
Posts: 840
If you thought that Swiss has cancelled flights for their own operational reasons such as mechanical problems, or crew issues, you would be right. If Swiss airspace has been closed for safety reasons, how do you think they are commiting a fraud? Are other airlines operating in Swiss airspace? I think not.
Apr 17, 2010, 4:26 pm
#13
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Scottsdale
Posts: 2,949
If you thought that Swiss has cancelled flights for their own operational reasons such as mechanical problems, or crew issues, you would be right. If Swiss airspace has been closed for safety reasons, how do you think they are commiting a fraud? Are other airlines operating in Swiss airspace? I think not.
Apr 17, 2010, 4:28 pm
#14
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Warsaw, PL
Posts: 272
I never said Swiss commited a fraud - I only said, that regulations are binding for everybody. I'll repeat again: regulation 261 does not exclude Force Majeure, so Swiss should not put on their website claims that are against the law.
Apr 17, 2010, 4:28 pm
#15
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,859
If you thought that Swiss has cancelled flights for their own operational reasons such as mechanical problems, or crew issues, you would be right. If Swiss airspace has been closed for safety reasons, how do you think they are commiting a fraud? Are other airlines operating in Swiss airspace? I think not.
Or maybe there is a certain threshold point when it's ok for anyone to say Foxtrott Oscar (term courtesy of tcswede) to their customers/business partners?