corporate-wage-slave

HMG has announced today a consultation at changing some aspects of EC261, at least in part to show differentation under Brexit. That differentation aspect is open to debate and however you look at it, this is all based on increasing the amount of regulation or (red tape if you prefer) in the airline sector.

The key changes out for consultation are
- changes to delay compensation for domestic flights, which is essence means moving to the railway model, where payments are linked to the price of tickets but are available for shorter delays.
- forcing UK airlines to use alternative dispute resolution mechanism such as CEDR used by BA. Currently all major UK airlines are on an ADR system.
- making airlines responsible for damage to wheelchairs, which some airlines use other regulations to cap the costs of repairs.
- increasing the CAA's consumer protection powers including direct powers to enforce compensation for breaches in consumer rights law.

For domestic aviation the proposal is

This has a net benefit to low cost airlines such as Ryanair since delays over 3 hours can lead to compensation of Ł210 (or Ł105 if the rebooking means arriving earlier than scheduled), which would frequently be more than the cost of the ticket. In the details it turns out that the airline industry is lobbying for this change. The impact assessment suggests that the current system provides consumers with Ł10.6million compensation, and the new system would lead to Ł13.9 million.

The consultation is here:
https://assets.publishing.service.go...nsultation.pdf

The impact assessment on domestic flights is here:
https://assets.publishing.service.go...assessment.pdf

Deadline is 27 March 2022.

13901

#Brexitdividends!

Dan1113

Would the airline still have a requirement to get you tow here you need to go? Because getting 100% back of a cheap ticket but then having to book last minute (ŁŁŁ) with another airline is not a good deal for customers.

scottishpoet

Why are airlines lobbying for a change that increases their costs by Ł3M?? Something does not sit right with that idea.

corporate-wage-slave

From reading the consultation I don't think they are proposing to change the rebooking provisions, nor the Right to Care.

I'm not entirely sure this is a good idea, though of course the devil is in the detail. In particular the railways tend to make it easy and fuss free to claim rather than pulling complainants over the extraordinary circumstances minutae. The number of claims will certainly go up quite significantly, so while I'm sure the airlines wanted to see compensation claims to not exceed ticket costs, I bet they didn't forsee the DfT's idea for loads of 25% claims of Ł17.50

The CAA extra powers is to my mind wrong, since the CAA has to work productively with airlines on many other areas, they have long struggled with dealing with the public as a consumer watchdog and it is not a role they seem to relish. There may be an argument to split out consumer protection aspects to a separate body to reduce the rather apparent conflict of interests.

The rest is adding regulation unnecessarily, which brings out the Lord Frost in me. This is entirely about adding red tape, not reducing it.

scottishpoet

So if everyone who was entitled made a claim the costs would go up by Ł3M, but the airline expectation is that most people will not bother making low value claims so their costs will actually go down and "the current system provides consumers with Ł10.6million compensation, and the new system would lead to Ł13.9 million." may be a little misleading?

dddc

More #BREXITBUREAUCRACY!

corporate-wage-slave

Full list of questions in the Consultation. I'm minded to send my own reply in - which will relate to my Flyertalk experiences.

Question 1
What, if any, additional powers to enforce aviation consumer protection laws directly through civil sanctions should the CAA have? What specific issues would these powers address beyond the enforcement powers already available to the CAA?

Question 2
If the CAA were to have increased enforcement powers, should their enforcement remit remain as it is currently, i.e. only for cases of collective harm? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of the CAA having increased powers to enforce consumer laws in individual cases?

Question 3
Are there any specific issues for the aviation sector that should be considered in the development of any administrative framework for the CAA?

Question 4
Should ADR be mandatory for all airlines flying to and from the UK? Please explain the reasons for your answer.

Question 5
Should all airlines flying to and from the UK be required to register with the ADR provider, or should parent organisations be able to register on behalf of all businesses within their parent group? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each of these options?

Question 6
How successful are the current compliance and enforcement mechanisms for the voluntary ADR schemes, and what alternative enforcement mechanisms should be in place to ensure compliance with any determinations made by an ADR body?

Question 7
What mechanisms could be put in place to ensure compliance with mandatory ADR for non-UK registered airlines?

Question 8
Are there any other alternatives to mandatory ADR? What incentives could be used to encourage more airlines to voluntarily utilise ADR?

Question 9
Do you have any further evidence on the likely impact of mandatory ADR on the number of ADR cases brought forward by consumers?

Question 10
What, if any, considerations should be had in relation to whether ADR should be mandatory for airports in relation to complaints around services for disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility?

Question 11
What incentives could be used to encourage more airports to voluntarily use ADR?

Question 12
Should ADR be completely free for consumers or would an ‘nominal fee’ in the event of an unsuccessful claim across ADR be advantageous to deterring frivolous claims?

Question13
Should the cost per ADR case for the airline be capped at specific amount? If so, at what level? Should there be different cost levels for different types of case and if so, how could those be determined?

Question 14
What are the advantages and disadvantages of CAA approved ADR entities as opposed to other options such as a single ombudsman? What benefits would there be to moving away from the current model?

Question 15
Should compensation for delays to domestic flights to be calculated as a percentage of the cost of the ticket?

Question 16
What are the advantages and disadvantages to the above proposal for compensation for delayed domestic UK flights?

Question 17
What other options, if any, are there for delay compensation, delay triggers, and proportion of ticket price for domestic UK flights?

Question 18
Should similar changes be made to compensation for cancelled flights and denied boarding? What are the advantages and disadvantages of both?

Question 19
If compensation for delayed domestic UK flights is linked to ticket price, what should the definition of ticket price include?

Question 20
Government is keen to understand the impact of the proposal to link compensation to ticket price:
• Please provide any evidence on the number of passengers on domestic flights who are currently eligible to claim compensation for delays.
• Please provide any evidence on the proportion of eligible passengers who currently make a successful compensation claim for delays of domestic flights.

Question 21
Is there anything else that can be done internationally within the confines of the 1999 Montreal Convention to help link compensation to the costs of travel for delay?

Question 22
What would be the advantages and disadvantages of enabling package organisers to seek a refund for cancelled flights that are part of a package holiday through legislation?

Question 23
What are the advantages and disadvantages of special declarations to anyone travelling with a wheelchair or mobility equipment?

Question 24
What would be the impact of removing the need to pay a supplementary fee for wheelchairs and mobility equipment?

Question 25
What evidence would it be reasonable to expect a passenger to provide to demonstrate like-for-like replacement/repair of a wheelchair or mobility equipment for a special declaration?

Question 26
What, if any, steps could be taken, beyond special declarations, to provide sufficient compensation for wheelchairs and mobility equipment damaged during transit on a domestic UK flight?

Question 27
Other than compensation for the damaged or lost wheelchair or mobility equipment, are there any additional provisions that would reduce the impact on an individual whose wheelchair or mobility equipment has been damaged in transit on a UK domestic flight?

Question 28
What else could be done to protect wheelchairs and mobility equipment during carriage? What would the impact on the individual and the airline be?

Question 29
What other reforms can we consider, to encourage more support of passengers with accessibility needs when travelling by air?

Question 30
Please provide an indication of how you think the policies set out in this consultation would affect people who share the following protected characteristics. When answering please consider the three objectives set out above. Please indicate in each box whether you consider the proposed policy to affect the protected characteristic positively, negatively, no affect or don’t know.
Where you have indicated negative impact please describe your reasons why.

[Matrix of the Nine Protected Characteristics and the 4 proposed areas of change]

Question 31
Do you have any further information or evidence in response to the questions in the Impact Assessments published alongside this consultation?

Question 32
Do you have any further information or evidence to add to your response to this consultation not covered elsewhere in your response?

UKtravelbear

One of the benefits of the existing regulation is its simplicity - be delayed by this amount of time and you will get this set amount of money. Be delayed by a longer time and get another fixed amount..

Making it a % of the ticket price ends that simplicity because what do they mean by ticket price?

It it the entirity of the fare or just the base fare? What about carrier surcharge? What about the APD and airport fees? How do they price the compo for a single leg when you'be bought a return?

If carrier surcharges are excuded from the base fare then expect some Ł1 tickets with a larger carrier surcharge - even where these aren't charged at the moment.

The railway model is easier for them to administer because there is no parsing of the ticket price. There isn't any exclusion of say a station use fee or network access fee etc

The simplest thing they could do is increase the length of time of the delay before any sort of compensation kicks in.

Duty of care is a different issue.

sigma421

Similarly, how would this work with Avios tickets? Would they owe me 25% of the Avios used if I'm an hour late? Also, if we're truly moving to the railway model, then the compensation would be due regardless of circumstances - that doesn't seem to be the case here.

13901

The obvious question for me is... why does EC261 need to change?

Dan1113

Because it is European and everything European is evil. Of course.

Maybe they could just change it to UK261 and everyone would be happy? Even slap on a union flag on the logo?

Kgmm77

i think that’s certainly half the reason, with the other half being that the large Tory party donors need to see some reward for their cash.

“Cutting back on red tape” sounds much more palatable than “filleting consumers rights”. As for giving the CAA more powers, I’m sure they are wondering how best to avoid that. They might start by actually using the consumer powers they currently have.

NickB

Irrespective of the merits in the abstract of a particular rule, given that such a large proportion of flights by UK airlines are to/from the EU and that Reg 261/2004 will apply to EU-UK flights on all airlines and to UK-EU flights on EU airlines, the idea of having a subset of flights governed by different, UK rules and having passengers having to familiarise with multiple sets of rules on compensation depending on the particular flight does not strike me as sensible, unless you take the view that one set of rules is to utterly, grossly and manifestly inadequate that you could not possibly have it and need to replace it with something fundamentally different.

I don't think that this is the case here and, therefore, it seems to me that it would be infinitely more sensible to remain aligned to the EU system rather than tweaking it at the margin. But I do get the political imperative for some of having to do something else, whatever it is and even if it is no better than the current system, because we need to show that we are not bound by Brussels regulatory choices.

AlanA

Excellent!