KLM trouble

taliesin

The relevant EC regulation 261/2004, effectively law in all EU countries, says:

"Article 15

Exclusion of waiver

1. Obligations vis-à-vis passengers pursuant to this Regulation may not be limited or waived, notably by a derogation or restrictive clause in the contract of carriage.

2. If, nevertheless, such a derogation or restrictive clause is applied in respect of a passenger, or if the passenger is not correctly informed of his rights and for that reason has accepted compensation which is inferior to that provided for in this Regulation, the passenger shall still be entitled to take the necessary proceedings before the competent courts or bodies in order to obtain additional compensation."

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32004R0261:EN:HTML

In other words, (a) they can't make your daughter sign something to waive her right to be transported to the contracted destination, and (b) if they try, the document is invalid and you can sue them for the costs.

The problem is, given the attitude that KLM has taken up until now, you may well have to sue them (or if the expense is small enough, pursue them in small claims court).

This is an appalling situation. I posted a similar note of my recent experience on the KLM board at FlyerTalk. The ensuing discussion has moved on to which of KLM's or Ryanair's customer care policies is worse. At least Ryanair are confirming on their website that they will pay for meals and accommodation, albeit up to a limit of the price paid for the ticket.

In this respect at least, KLM is worse than Ryanair. Maybe that says it all!

Mr_Warren_2

Beware of interpreting how rules are written.

Although it is very hard on people who find themselves abroad without money and proper accomodation, KLM would only be responsible if the PAX are in transit with that same airline.

You fly out of Newcastle and need to go to Dubai via Amsterdam all the way on KLM. You get stuck in AMS then you are covered and taken care of by KLM.

Now the original post says that PAX arrived from Kuala Lumpur to Singapore. That was not a KLM flight hence little or no KLM help on the ground.

With 100s of passengers stranded in various part of the world, airlines cannot take care of the PAX that were to travel on their aircraft. It's only when you have checked-in that you become their responsability.

And mickey72, the leaflet you have kindly linked to this post only applies to flights having been cancelled/delayed by the airline through their own fault.

A volcano erruption somewhere in the world is hardly the making of one single airline.

Mr_Warren_2

Just this minute received this Email from KLM (I am a frequent flyer with them).

http://ebm.klm-email.com/c/tag/tBLzwHhATFKsEB8HRsgAQu2jzUN/doc.html?t_params=

mikey72

Cityboy wrote: »

Taliesin

Any claims would almost certainly fall under the small claims track in the county as they would be unlikely to exceed the £5k applicable to that track. However, I would not be anticipating many cases since the airlines know there is no defence to denying passengers their rights to reasonable expenses for meals/accommodation under Art 9 of EC 261/2004.

Remember, the airlines tried to have these expenses included under the 'extraordinary circumstances' clause when they (via IATA) took the Dept for Transport to court in 2004 which was appealed to the ECJ in 2006 (case C344/04).

The airlines lost this case and, since they are fully aware there is no defence to reimbursing pax for such expenses, would get flayed in court for trying to defend something on which the highest court in Europe has already ruled.

Ryanair, via the statement on their website, have indeed tried to also wriggle out of reimbursing pax legitimate claims. They might like to consider the juxtaposition of this statement since their own website duly publishes the correct information that should be given to passengers: http://www.ryanair.com/doc/faqs/EU261_EN.pdf.

What is your qualification/job by the way.
If you're not a UK lawyer, are you qualified in some aspect for european law, or the ECJ, or do you deal with airlines reguarly etc?

taliesin

Mr_Warren wrote: »

Beware of interpreting how rules are written.
Now the original post says that PAX arrived from Kuala Lumpur to Singapore. That was not a KLM flight hence little or no KLM help on the ground.

With 100s of passengers stranded in various part of the world, airlines cannot take care of the PAX that were to travel on their aircraft. It's only when you have checked-in that you become their responsability.

And mickey72, the leaflet you have kindly linked to this post only applies to flights having been cancelled/delayed by the airline through their own fault.

In a word, rubbish. This is not a matter of interpretation.

See, for just one (authoritative) source, http://www.auc.org.uk/ (the Air Transport Users Council, to whom complaints about non-compliance should be directed, and who have the power to fine airlines - I believe - up to £1000 per passenger per infringement):

Be aware that some airlines are giving misleading information as to your rights under EU law. The first point to know is that EU passenger rights laws do apply, despite the extreme difficulties that the eruption has caused. http://www.auc.org.uk/default.aspx?catid=306&pagetype=90&pageid=11028 for more details.

And, amongst other things on the redirect page:

Your right to hotel accommodation, meals and refreshments.

Regulation (EC) 261/2004 requires airlines to offer you meals, refreshments and hotel accommodation as appropriate whilst you wait for a rearranged flight. They should also cover any transport costs between the hotel and the airport. There are no time or monetary limits on the provision of this assistance.

If your airline has not provided assistance, and you have had to arrange it yourself, our advice is to keep your expenditure to a minimum, make sure you get receipts and claim reimbursement from your airline when you get home.

The only requirement to receive assistance is that the flight is delayed or cancelled. The regulation applies to all flights within or from the EU on all carriers, and into the EU on EU carriers. Nothing about having to be checked in, or limitations because you arrived at the airport on some other airline. Most airlines apart from KLM are at least trying to honour their obligations.

Mr_Warren wrote: »

Just this minute received this Email from KLM (I am a frequent flyer with them).

You may be doing all right, but please don't discourage those who have been messed around from recovering the cost of the care to which they were entitled but which KLM refused to provide.

taliesin

Cityboy wrote: »

Taliesin

Any claims would almost certainly fall under the small claims track in the county as they would be unlikely to exceed the £5k applicable to that track.
...

I don't think we disagree in the least, Cityboy. (And let me take this opportunity to thank you for your work on this board to appraise travellers of their rights).

Ryanair, via the statement on their website, have indeed tried to also wriggle out of reimbursing pax legitimate claims. They might like to consider the juxtaposition of this statement since their own website duly publishes the correct information that should be given to passengers: http://www.ryanair.com/doc/faqs/EU261_EN.pdf.

Check out http://www.aviationreg.ie/CAR_response_to_Ryanair_announcement_that_passenger_expenses_will_not_be_reimbursed/Default.467.html which is the Irish regulator telling O'Leary, more or less, that he won't get away with limiting claims. Although see also http://www.herald.ie/breaking-news/national-news/ryanair-defiant-over-compensation-2146916.html which amounts to O'Leary saying see you in court.

Time to get out the popcorn?

mikey72

taliesin wrote: »

I don't think we disagree in the least, Cityboy. (And let me take this opportunity to thank you for your work on this board to appraise travellers of their rights). Check out http://www.aviationreg.ie/CAR_response_to_Ryanair_announcement_that_passenger_expenses_will_not_be_reimbursed/Default.467.html which is the Irish regulator telling O'Leary, more or less, that he won't get away with limiting claims. Although see also http://www.herald.ie/breaking-news/national-news/ryanair-defiant-over-compensation-2146916.html which amounts to O'Leary saying see you in court.

Time to get out the popcorn?

Well from your previous link to the AUC website, they're on the fence too.
Only a "think" and "should"
http://www.auc.org.uk/default.aspx?catid=306&pagetype=90&pageid=6547#two


3. If the airline does not give me assistance when my flight is delayed and I have to pay myself, can I get my money back?
The Regulation does not deal with this situation. But we think that the airline, having failed to honour its obligation under the Regulation at the time of the disruption, should be prepared to reimburse reasonable expenditure on those items listed under “assistance” in the Regulation on sight of receipts.

mikey72

mikey72 wrote: »

What is your qualification/job by the way.
If you're not a UK lawyer, are you qualified in some aspect for european law, or the ECJ, or do you deal with airlines reguarly etc?

Well I know you're here, any answer, I'm curious?

zaksmum

My daughter just now phoned to say she is back in the Uk, at Heathrow, attempting to book a train journey home to Liverpool.

I do realise, as someone mentioned, that the flight to Singapore from Kuala Lumpur was not a KLM flight...but surely as it was the KLM flight out of Singapore that was the cancelled one, they are the ones who should take the responsibility to assist and care for the stranded passengers?

My daughter's beyond exhausted now, and she's young and healthy. God help those who are elderly and not in the best of health.

mikey72

Cityboy wrote: »

Taliesin

Any claims would almost certainly fall under the small claims track in the county as they would be unlikely to exceed the £5k applicable to that track. However, I would not be anticipating many cases since the airlines know there is no defence to denying passengers their rights to reasonable expenses for meals/accommodation under Art 9 of EC 261/2004.

Remember, the airlines tried to have these expenses included under the 'extraordinary circumstances' clause when they (via IATA) took the Dept for Transport to court in 2004 which was appealed to the ECJ in 2006 (case C344/04).

The airlines lost this case and, since they are fully aware there is no defence to reimbursing pax for such expenses, would get flayed in court for trying to defend something on which the highest court in Europe has already ruled.

Ryanair, via the statement on their website, have indeed tried to also wriggle out of reimbursing pax legitimate claims. They might like to consider the juxtaposition of this statement since their own website duly publishes the correct information that should be given to passengers: http://www.ryanair.com/doc/faqs/EU261_EN.pdf.

How do you get £5k?
Ryanair is in Ireland, limit of 2000 euro in small claims.
(and you would have to go there, probably by a ryanair flight)
Dutch small calims is 5000 euro though (and you've probably have to go by KLM)
Then they'd all appeal, (subject to the dutch limit of 1750 euro)