Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

Ganga

richardw wrote: »

Ryanair is enormous, they have hundreds of planes, it is inevitable that there will be problems, a back up system is just sensible.

So you think that they should keep a spare plane and a crew at every airport they fly from just in case? a good low cost option:rotfl:

richardw

Ganga wrote: »

So you think that they should keep a spare plane and a crew at every airport they fly from just in case? a good low cost option...

I said a back up system, they have the data about the risk of delays and cancellations, you and I don't, but what you suggest is clearly unnecessary.

symphony63

Ganga wrote: »

So you think that they should keep a spare plane and a crew at every airport they fly from just in case? a good low cost option:rotfl:

No they don't need to keep spare planes as there are other backup methods. There is always an option to hire a plane and some airlines do that when they are stuck in any way.

Ganga

symphony63 wrote: »

No they don't need to keep spare planes as there are other backup methods. There is always an option to hire a plane and some airlines do that when they are stuck in any way.

So you are saying that there are spare planes available at every airport for hire?I do not think so.
If you mean to hire one from A and take it to B ,that will take time and all the people chasing compensation will still be putting their claims in if it takes longer than 3 hours.

111KAB

Ganga

The situation is that certain airlines have developed the capacity to cope with potential delays within the EU routes and some have not. Ryan and EJ (taking two of the larger airlines) have established EU bases in the event that say, a plane goes tech, flying out from PMI Ryan have 4 Boeings based there so the chances are they have one spare and able get to a ‘local’ airport within an hour or so of the 3 hour threshold being implemented. EJ have done the same with their EU bases. When the summer programme is in full swing admittedly they may have problems (due to lack of spare planes) but, particularly in the off season, they have negotiated beneficial rates just to park their planes at EU airports so not only are they getting reduced parking charges but they benefit by being closer to the problem if a substitute plane is required. When wet leasing is needed out of the UK airlines such as Titan may charge an excessive amount but possibly far less than the penal costs attributed to 261/2004 compensation exposure and likewise mainland Europe have airlines able to wet lease at short notice.

Jet2 have decided to base a spare Boeing at Alicante as they know, from there, that this plane can serve their normal Med routes easily within the necessary three hours. Different airlines take different views based upon both their capacity, their desire to avoid 261/2004 claims and also their wish, or otherwise, to please their (delayed) passengers.

What is important to note is that no EU airline will cut corners. For a myriad of reasons they cannot afford to so safety will always come first. As Vauban points out the increased cost due to 261/2004 claims is minimal and indeed the potential €2 cost is, I would suggest, a minimal ‘insurance levy’ to cover the passenger against increased costs possibly due to overnight accommodation, onward transport, dining, parking costs, delay etc. It should also be noted that the vast majority of delayed passengers do not claim so say, in Ryan’s case, they admit to a levy which is, in effect, an add-on which falls into their pockets.

At the end of the day the law is the law. If you, or the airlines, believe the law to be an !!! then you should do something about it. The airlines, over the years, have done very little, or basically nothing at all to lobby. Members of the public who feel strongly that the law is wrong have done nothing at all. No representation to the EU (where the law is established), no letters/email etc to the UK head of the EU Transportation Committee, etc. – just the odd bleat on forums such as this one. Counter this with numerous personal representations to the various bodies (CAA included) as a result of individuals being seriously inconvenienced by substantive delays.

If you feel strongly about the matter then speak with your local MEP as this is the only way (pre March 2019) that the law will be changed and following our ‘going it alone’ I fully expect EU261/2004 will be adopted into UK law so a 2004 law will extend long after 2019!

JPears

UA now taking the law into their own hands.....
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/10/united-airlines-video-passenger-removed-overbooked-flight

UA -simple answer - don't overbook and make sure your flight crew are in the right place to start with.

Billy_Bonkers

JPears wrote: »

UA now taking the law into their own hands.....
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/10/united-airlines-video-passenger-removed-overbooked-flight

UA -simple answer - don't overbook and make sure your flight crew are in the right place to start with.

This doesn't make sense. Why would they let more people past the gate than there are seat seats on the aircraft?

Vauban

Billy_Bonkers wrote: »

This doesn't make sense. Why would they let more people past the gate than there are seat seats on the aircraft?

Media reports are suggesting that the four airline staff - who needed to board in order to service another flight - turned up only after people had been boarded.

What a PR disaster ...

Billy_Bonkers

The usual process in the US is to ask for volunteers and encourage them by offering additional flights, compo, + more goodies if necessary (i.e. hotel, upgrade, etc.) It is strange why they picked on this particular chap. Suspect there is more to it.

JPears

They "picked" on 4 , the other 3 left without much complaint.
Apparently, they were picked as having the cheapest tickets. Not sure if the airline would have this information to hand?
They had offered upto $800 United Dollars (not real money) and had declined an offer from someone who would get off for $1600. its going to cost them ALOT more than that. Assult, battery, slander and libel (they are now claiming he was "disruptive and beligerent". This has been denied by other passengers)
Really quite bizarre behaviour