MSE News: Delayed air passengers need more rights, EU says

stoatwblr

Alan_Bowen wrote: »

The good proposals include a requirement that airlines deal with claims quickly...

That's not going to help when the likes of Ryanair staff at Stansted hide in their offices as delayed flights come in and refuse to come out even when the airport manager is hammering on the door demanding they deal with disgruntled passengers.

No, I'm not making it up.

callum9999

NFH wrote: »

Without compensation, the minority of passengers who suffer delays would be subsidising the majority who don't suffer delays. Compensation remedies this imbalance by causing the minority who suffer delays to pay a lot less and the majority who don't suffer delays to pay slightly more. It's fair that passengers pay a net amount according to the standard of service they receive.

Though the point I've made repeatedly on this matter is that people who suffer delays don't just "pay less" or "a net amount according to the standard of service they receive" - in many cases they are being paid to take the flight...

You'll no doubt carry on insisting it's fair that someone on an £8 flight delayed by 3 hours should be given €300 in compensation, but I just cannot accept it.

richardw

Why did they bring in this regulation 261/2004 in the first place, Callum9999?

NFH

callum9999 wrote: »

Though the point I've made repeatedly on this matter is that people who suffer delays don't just "pay less" or "a net amount according to the standard of service they receive" - in many cases they are being paid to take the flight...

You'll no doubt carry on insisting it's fair that someone on an £8 flight delayed by 3 hours should be given €300 in compensation, but I just cannot accept it.

Yes, in some cases the net amount paid by the passenger can be and should be negative. Compensation is not necessarily limited to the amount paid. To take a more extreme example, if your washing machine catches fire and your kitchen burns down, then the manufacturer and/or retailer would be liable for the cost of the damage to the kitchen, which would be substantially more than the amount paid for the washing machine. The same principle applies with services, whereby a payment for distress and inconvenience (a concept used frequently by courts) can be more than the amount originally paid for the service.

callum9999

richardw wrote: »

Why did they bring in this regulation 261/2004 in the first place, Callum9999?

Why even bother asking? You should know full well that my view of why they bought it in will be very different to yours... No doubt you think it's to force the airlines to be more punctual/reliable - whereas I personally think the punctuality of private businesses is none of the EUs concern.

NFH wrote: »

Yes, in some cases the net amount paid by the passenger can be and should be negative. Compensation is not necessarily limited to the amount paid. To take a more extreme example, if your washing machine catches fire and your kitchen burns down, then the manufacturer and/or retailer would be liable for the cost of the damage to the kitchen, which would be substantially more than the amount paid for the washing machine. The same principle applies with services, whereby a payment for distress and inconvenience (a concept used frequently by courts) can be more than the amount originally paid for the service.

In some cases yes, it should be negative. Someone who is delayed by 3 hours in an airport, provided with free food and drinks and don't miss any work etc. - categorically no.

And why on Earth take an "extreme example"? That is so extreme it's no longer remotely relevant... That "principle" only applies in the transport sector because governments have forced it with new laws. If my coach is late I don't get compensation for "distress". If my train is 10 hours late I don't get a huge arbitrary compensation sum. It's only for airlines. Talking about trains, I personally think something like the Delay Repay scheme would be far fairer than an arbitrary €300 payment (though perhaps reserve that for more severe cases to compensate people if they've missed a day of work etc.).

richardw

callum9999 wrote: »

Why even bother asking? You should know full well that my view of why they bought it in will be very different to yours...

Aren't there definite reasons why the regulation was brought in?

I'm not interested in your view of what the intent of the regulation was, just if you are aware of what was happening to passengers prior to the regulation.

blondmark

richardw wrote: »

I'm not interested in your view of what the intent of the regulation was, just if you are aware of what was happening to passengers prior to the regulation.

They were all screwed over big time. So no change there then.

callum9999

richardw wrote: »

Aren't there definite reasons why the regulation was brought in?

I'm not interested in your view of what the intent of the regulation was, just if you are aware of what was happening to passengers prior to the regulation.

Which is clearly a loaded question as you have a very different opinion of the affect it had on passengers before this.... Maybe there are some definitive reasons but it doesn't mean I have to agree with them. Unless you're claiming the EU is infallible?

My view is that this is life, things go wrong and 99% of people are perfectly capable of spending 3 hours in a departure lounge without needing a ridiculous sum of compensation for alleged distress. The way some people on here go on Its as if those delayed are fearing for their life!

Though at no point have I said there shouldn't be any legislation on this issue, merely that the sums involved are ridiculous for a bog standard 3 hour delay for a typical leisure traveller.

MarkBargain

jpsartre wrote: »

Ryanair's EU261 levy is £2.50 per one-way flight. It's hardly a fortune.

According to Ryanair's website, in 2011 they had 75.8M passengers so £2.50 each would be £189.5M (assuming each passenger took one one-way flight).

How much do they pay out in compensation then for EU261?

jpsartre

MarkBargain wrote: »

How much do they pay out in compensation then for EU261?

I haven't the slightest clue though I doubt it's more than what they take in from the fee.