Stranded versus delayed
 

Canada's low-cost vacation airline Sunwing ran into a technical glitch yesterday and my news feeds were replete with sad tales of woe from travellers stranded in various locations. There was the usual fury directed at the airline, the whining about lack of communication and the teary-eyed pleas for an immediate solution.

I have no sympathy. The term "stranded" means to be stuck somewhere with no means of getting anywhere else. Unless socked in by weather and everything is grounded the only people who are "stranded" are those who aren't prepared for the occasional flight disruption. Sensible travellers therefore are never "stranded" but are merely "delayed."

"Delayed" implies that my original flight will operate, but the airline has a revised departure time and my boarding pass is still valid.

"Stranded" would imply that my flight has been canceled or is in an unknown state and I have not been rebooked by the airline on something else. That is, I either must buy a new ticket on another airline, take a train, drive, etc. The stranding airline isn't helping me.

I don't know what Sunwing did this time, but I can totally see them stranding people.

I have some sympathy, given how abysmal airline customer service is and how regulating bodies do absolutely nothing for consumers. But I have also traveled enough to know that these smaller operations that position themselves as "low-cost" (whether they actually are or not) carry greater risks than flying a major carrier. Doubly so if their whole business model is flying to destinations popular with mass-market tourists.

concur 1000%, as emphasized and amended

It's a matter of words but if a ULCC only flys a route a few days a week and cancels with 100% load factor, or very near thereto, in theory a pax could be waiting well over a week to be re-accommodated. The airline might just cancel the reservation and hand the customer a refund. Either way that would be "stranded" in my book.

So it's the customers' fault. Lovely. :rolleyes:

What is the customer's fault is their inability to solve their immediate problem which is getting home. They piss and moan about the airline quite justifiably but would evidently prefer to sit in an airport for days on end with no idea of when they will fly instead of finding an alternate solution.

I've had a charter airline let me down. My solution was to go to the counter of another airline, produce my credit card and fly out a few hours later.

Good for you.

Now what about the people who fly ULCC as they don't have a credit card or the means to buy another last minute / expensive flight?

They should get their priorities in order. Get a credit card, make sure there's enough room on it to get home when circumstances demand it and don't engage in non-essential travel until then.

Even for a heavily privileged board like Flyertalk, this post is oozing with enough privilege to power its own forum.

Not privilege but dismay that a large element of society would rather whine and remain at the mercy of a corporation that doesn't always have their best interests at heart instead of taking the initiative to solve their immediate problem and have a contingency plan in place when the best laid plans go awry.

because it's SOOOOOOO much easier to rant on social media (or on an anonymous internet forum) in near real time about how the corporation is screwing them over

Sorry to disappoint you, but there are people out there who do not have the means to buy a walk-up ticket, which is probably why they were flying on an ULCC in the first place. Your demands that they save up large amounts of money, or spend years repairing their credit, before going anywhere, are just laughable.

This is why we need rules and laws in a society - to protect individuals from unscrupulous, unethical corporations that fail to deliver on their obligations to their customers. Our governments are failing us by allowing corporations to have all the power and zero accountability.

EU 261 is a baby step in the correct direction, at least in one region of the world, but much, much more needs to be done.

We agree more needs to be done to make corporations accountable when they don't meet their commitments. Any "stranded" passenger who makes alternate travel arrangements should, within reason, be compensated for any extra costs incurred. But even if paying for the travel out of my own pocket it is a preferable alternative to sleeping on an airport floor with no idea when I was getting home.

I grew up in the 1970s. Most people never flew because flying was expensive. It boggles my mind that people think they should be able to have something just because it's there. I drive a 2005 Cadillac Deville. If I see someone driving a 2022 Cadillac Escalade my immediate thought isn't I'm owed that 2022 model.

ULCCs might be short on price but they're also often short on service. That $59 fare comes with strings attached. Want to fly better-better yourself and you will.

I would be with you if it were someone flying a ULCC and then going on an online rant about how the seat was small, there was no first class, there was no lounge, there was no food, and they had to pay for baggage. Those are the legitimate, advertised strings attached to the $59 fare.

We still expect the core product - the flight - to be delivered with the $59 fare.

Ever look at the Customer Service Line at Wal Mart? It ain't pretty. Then go to an upscale department store and see the difference. $59 fares aren't going to get you good customer service because the provider doesn't see it as necessary because you're getting a cheap price. Not that the legacies are much better now.

This reminds me of one of the rappers recently in the news. She claimed AA stranded her and her baby, as well as others (the rest?) of the plane at MIA, with no luggage. My first thought was that out of EVERYONE she was probably the least "stranded" as she had the resources to purchase a ticket, or anything she should need, plus likely had at least a person or handlers/assistants. And a label that probably would have gotten her on a private jet if she complained enough.

For me, stranded makes me think of accidentally being left totally alone on a cruise ship's private island or something with no other boats coming into port for a while.

and the issues are: (1) the airlines that offer/provide said $59 flights have a minimalist business model that doesn't make allowance for any instance in which anything is other than normal, and (2) many if not most people who eagerly snap up said $59 flights have not -- and likely will not -- ever consider that things just might not go normally during their travels or the fact that the airline's business model will likely leave them to fend for themselves for awhile

in real time, whether they consider themselves "stranded" or "delayed" is only peripherally relevant to how anyone else perceives both the situation and the reactions

again, anyone with a public persona is even better positioned than the average traveler to make a digital ruckus about how "the big bad airline treated me and my family/traveling party like dirt and I'm gonna make sure everyone knows about it! "

Which is precisely why there needs to be a strong passenger bill of rights with heavy penalties for extended delays, including provisions that require airlines who have such a minimalist approach to rebook passengers on other airlines and pay steep penalties to the affected passengers.

The fact that a complete absence of customer service and in some cases a complete absence of intent to even deliver the contracted service at all is considered a valid "business model" is a failure of our government to fulfill a basic consumer protection function.


I don't know the underlying situation with the rapper.

Although I will say this: AA failing to deliver and do right by its customers is totally believable given their current operational state. A celebrity throwing a hissyfit about not getting special treatment like a private lounge or F upgrades for their whole family or posse is also totally believable.

So whether this was an overentitled celeb or a real operational and customer service failure....I don't know....but in 2022 I'm more likely to believe the rapper than AA. That's the current state of U.S. airlines.

i have full sympathy (and ZERO EMPATHY) for these ULCC pax because they usually have a limited holiday budget that doesn’t factor IRROPS. Like us US3 fliers, nobody reads the fine microprint on the COC. the majority of these pax are not prepared to spend money on hotel due to IRROPS with plans for reimbursement. Most of these people aren’t prepared to pay $50 for a wash/fold laundry service when they’re delayed a week or two for their ULCC to get them home.

i have zero empathy because I don’t fly ULCC and like others in ft, I can just buy a full fare flight to get home in order to reduce inconvenience or I can taxi to a money-burning hotel instead of awaiting a budget hotel voucher plus food vouchers plus shuttle voucher. I don’t know what it’s like to have used up my travel budget for the year. I’ve endured delayed luggage which taught me to carry extra clothing in my carryon during travel.

it’s not a pretty picture for most of these ULCC pax. I just hope that these IRROPS don’t impede their ability to fondly remember the other 7-14 days of their fabulous vacation. I’ve had my own flight issues for flights back home that I won’t forget since I also won’t forget all the joyful memories of trips. Ok. I will eventually forget since that’s normal for humans. :-)

but utter sympathy. Nobody likes IRROPS. That’s why we have FlyerTalk. And we all hate IRROPS in life, outside of travel.

Which news feeds exist that allow you to learn about Sunwings? Today is the first day that I’ve heard of it. I definitely don’t read any news feeds about travel outside of FlyerTalk and nytimes.

I wonder what percentage of the affected Sunwing patrons purchased relevant insurance.

Is travel insurance a well-regulated product in Canada? Do your major national insurance companies offer it?

(Serious question. I'm in a U.S. state without any clear guidance about travel insurance regulation and my homeowners and auto company, a brand I *somewhat* trust, does not sell it.)

Yes. Several products, including time-based... for example, per trip, or blanket duration (usually a calendar year). Includes various types and packages. I used to buy them often and only had to use it once, and it was helpful.
I thought this was standard across Can/USA.

Definitely less common in the USA. I'm with USAA and Prudential for different types of insurance and neither offer it. I don't know about Allstate or State Farm.

Travel companies try to push it, usually with insurance firms that I have never had any relationship with and haven't ever researched. It's never clear to me how/where the insurance company is located/incorporated, regulated, or what the venue would be for any dispute.

Residents of bigger states, especially places like NY that have a pretty active consumer-protection function in the AG's office, may have clearer published guidelines on how to research and buy travel insurance from reputable firms. Just not a thing I've ever looked too far into.

I remember when I lived in the UK, some of their national, trusted insurance companies offered it. Most of my friends bought an annual policy, which was pretty affordable.

Not sure I agree with that. The probability of being stranded when taking an obscure ULCC is non-trivial, so it seems like prudent advice for anyone taking such a trip to have the means for some kind of back-up plan.

Or, for that matter, for anyone taking any trip via any means of transportation to be equipped to mitigate a bad-case scenario.

I was stranded with 2 (albeit adult) children on 9/11, in London, during a long connection. The (in)famous British airline assumed no responsibility whatsoever. All would-be tourist services were price gouging the unfortunate who were stranded. I personally, boycotted that airline for 20 years, as a result, until i decided to let bygones be bygones. And then they pulled another zinger, and I was a full fare business class.

This isn't oozing privilege. It is oozing common sense. It's about deferring consumption of non-essential goods and/or services until you can comfortably pay for them, vs. spending all of your immediately available assets on short term pleasures before you have built up your safety reserves to handle unexpected situations. That leads to the next issue: If you are flying a low cost carrier with infrequent service, and the conditions of carriage permit the carrier to cancel the flight with minimal obligation to get you to your destination, it might be a really good idea to buy travel insurance.

If you live somewhere with reputable, trusted, well-regulated travel insurance, by all means BUY IT.

But there also needs to be a passenger bill of rights that prevents carriers from selling tickets with minimal obligations to actually deliver upon them. Whether they bill themselves as "low cost" or not.

The individual consumer here did nothing wrong - they just bought a product, one that was in many cases aggressively marketed by the corporation. The burden to deliver should be on the corporation, and there should be a regulatory function that ensures that, with severe penalties for those who don't. I definitely don't trust the corporations to regulate themselves, especially not a bunch as ethically challenged as airlines.

No, that is exactly what privilege is... wagging your finger at people who cannot afford full fare, as if it's their fault that they are not wealthy like you.