Delayed Flight Compensation

Chris_Patzelt

Four of us travelled with Thomson/Britannia Airways from Palma to Gatwick on 13 June.

The flight was delayed by just over eight hours due to a faulty engine part.

During that time we were given a meal and drink. We also got a soft drink on the flight.

I have read the compensation article - the airline claims that compensation is not payable for aircraft amlfunction. Has anyone successfully claimed? If so any help would be applreciated.

Chris

Baz-Bee

Chris_Patzelt wrote:

Four of us travelled with Thomson/Britannia Airways from Palma to Gatwick on 13 June.

The flight was delayed by just over eight hours due to a faulty engine part.

During that time we were given a meal and drink. We also got a soft drink on the flight.

I have read the compensation article - the airline claims that compensation is not payable for aircraft amlfunction. Has anyone successfully claimed? If so any help would be applreciated.

Chris

Bullsh*t, ensuring that an aircraft is airworthy is their legal duty. If there is a problem the prompt repair or alternative provsion is also their duty. This is all within their direct control. If they carry insufficient parts or do not have suitable repair and maintenance procedures in place or other planes available then that is their problem not yours.

Ask them precisely what they think would constitute a claimable occurrence. They are playing the normal game that if you say no long enough and loud enogh 99.99% of people will give up and walk away. Keep at the bastar*s until they pay up what you are due.

jd79

Had a similar prob. of late and again with Thomson (posted previously on this board).They do not want to put their hand in their pocket. The did not even supply us with a meal or drink even after more than 5 hours delay. This is a terrible Co. to deal with. They are saying that we are not entitled to any comp. under the new EU Regs even though they are clearly in breach.

WiseInvestor_2

I'm staggered by the recent flurry of demands for compensation!

On one hand posters use this site to find the cheapest deals, yet once they've paid their 99p to fly to wherever, they jump up and down crying foul play because they depart late. Has anyone bothered to stop and think whether this new holy grail legislation will either:

- put the low costs out of business, thereby reducing competition and consumer choice
- encourage airlines to certify aircraft fit to fly rather than spend time to fix (an engine!) problem properly


I'm all for consumer protection, but you get what you pay for particularly when it comes to flights

Sparrowhawk_2

WiseInvestor,

I am surprised at the severity of your post. Many people are sick and tired of being mucked around and misled by the broken promises airlines in general. It is clearly only fair that airlines (especially low cost) should not be allowed to get away with shabby service and long delays. It is also a distortion of the turth to say that it only costs 99p to fly where-ever. Companies such as ryanair normally add charges etc. that add to their own revenue, not just what is passed on to other companies. (mind you BA et al are guilty of the same with 'fuel surcharges' even though their fuel is purhased 12 months in advance at a fixed price).

Any business should be obliged to keep their promises or suffer severe penalties and airlines are no exception. Low cost airlines and 'charter' services seem to think that becuse a 99p return flight (which actually cost £30 incl taxes and charges) plus transport to and from airport etc etc. That they have a right to treat you like cattle or worse.

Your comment of
"I'm all for consumer protection, but you get what you pay for particularly when it comes to flights"

What about food? if you bought a hotdog for 30p that perhaps should have cost a £1 and it made you ill and perhaps poisoned someone in your family, would you simply say, ok I got what I paid for?

An extreme example perhaps, but time is money in todays world and if any airline is stupid enough to release such cheap fares in the face of high penalties for being late, this is not the fault of the passenger.

These rules have been put in place to stop airlines taking the proverbial. I would take a differet view of course if (like train travel) all tickets easily transferable and other modes of transport were readily available.

WiseInvestor_2

Of course travellers are entitled to review the legislation but is it any wonder certain airlines are strongly contesting the ruling and claiming innocence against anyone who complains? The big airlines have been rebooking/hotelling/compensating for years so the new rules have had little or no effect but they obviously charge more in the first place. IMO, MSE-addicts really have to ask themselves what's more important; a cheap flight (so expect problems) or backup services (so pay upfront).

Whilst I don't disagree that low costs inflate the taxes/fees/charges portion of your ticket, much of the additional costs remain outside of their control (eg. airport landing fees). Whilst airlines do indeed utilise 'fuel hedging' to limit their exposure to price fluctuations, oil prices have stayed above $50/barrel for some time now and the fuel surcharges are entirely genuine. It's only thanks to recent legislation that airlines have been forced to specify the breakdown of charges on the ticket so travellers know exactly what they're paying for.

I just don't understand the contradiction between those demanding the cheapest seats and the flurry of compo-claims when things don't go quite according to plan. If the legislation succeeds in it's aims, low costs will go bust and consumers will find themselves back in the 90s when it was BA or Bognor!

Becles

Aircraft (and other modes of transport) break down. They are not perfect and faults are just one of those things. It is not safe flying with a dodgy engine, so it needed to be fixed.

8 hours isn't a long time, and they did look after you by giving you free food and drink. What are you claiming compensation for?

IMO too many people are jumping on the compensation bandwagon which eventually will result in higher fares for all

Sparrowhawk_2

Mr Wiseinvestor,

I do understand the point you are trying to make, but the grounds on which you make it are unfounded.
I have noticed in other threads- your comments about wanting "to have our cake and eat it too" by this your refer to
the expectation of wanting both the cheapest flights and the best service. You bemoan that this legislation
may bring about a compensation culture that will send the low cost airlines broke.

This is simply not true, All airlines have a few 'very cheap' seats, just as many businesses have 'loss leaders' in order
to get more customers.

1) Low cost airlines can often be more expensive than regular airlines
example 1: I want to go to dublin in the first week of July and I am able to book a
flight (from heathrow) with BMI (proper BMI no BMIbaby) for £41.15 return incl taxes and
credit card fees. (using the right card etc)
The same flight from Gatwick with Ryanair (if I could get the flight for 99p) would cost £34.75 including taxes
and credit card charges etc.

I put the difference of £6.40 down to the fact I can take 5kg more checked luggage,
I get fed and the fact that taxes and charges are higher at heathrow.

Interestingly for the 4th of July that fare is available on BMI, whilst the cheapeast available on Ryanair is £9.99
plus taxes each way (£51.75) - (from Gatwick)

2) Ryanair has been proposing for some time to fly all passengers free and only charge them taxes and charges,
on the condition you fly hand luggage only (probably max 10 or 15kg) and to save cost on new aircraft there would
be no fold-down trays, probably no widows and a number of other cost saving measures. This would keep their Cargo
hold free for the much more profitable airfreight.

3) I have no doubt that the likes of Ryanair are still getting some kind of rebate or commission etc etc for flying to
regional airports, Even though theses "kickbacks" were ruled illegal. I find it is very difficult to get very cheap fares
with ryanair to their exclusive regional airports.

To suggest that Ryanair, Flybe, Easyjet et al should not be responsible to take a reasonable duty of care
towards their passengers under the new EU legislation is dangerous. Just because low cost airlines need to carry 80%
capacity, rather than the 60% required by traditional airlines should never absolve them of their obligations.
I very much doubt that we have seen the end of super-cheap fares, and I have no doubt that in the event that
low-cost airlnes can't squirm out of paying compensation to passengers that deserve it another fee will be added to the
"taxes and charges"

Don't worry wiseinvestor, I'm sure it won't effect the share price that much.

WiseInvestor_2

Sparrowhawk,

I quite agree that low cost airlines can be more expensive than the traditional scheduled carriers, but that is not the issue here. The issue is one of survivability and the risks of bankruptcy following the introduction of the latest EU dictat. The scheduled carriers have a robust network of aircraft and facilities such that following disruption they can often commandeer extra resources or join forces with other airlines to ensure passengers are treated correctly without the need for complaints or compensation. This extra protection alone can make the extra costs involved worthwhile. However, low cost airlines are very much on their own and are trying to offer products and services that give them a fighting chance in such a competitive market place.

New airlines typically start with ageing aircraft that are either less capable or less reliable than they would like. There have been numerous well-publicised examples of Ryanair (for example) being unable to land in foggy conditions both here and abroad due to a lack of aircraft/crew/airport capabilities, whilst BA were merrily flying back and forth with no problems. Had the new legislation been in force at the time, the passengers may have been entitled to considerable compensation (£174 each?), at a time when the airline was trying hard to put cash aside to invest and improve. Thankfully, some of the existing low costs in the UK have performed well and are now able to offer the same quality aircraft previously found only at the 'major' London airports! Whether todays newcomers will be quite so lucky against the compo-clan will remain to be seen. Ultimately, whilst huge cash payouts may sound great (justified or otherwise), they will make a severe dent in the profits of the smaller, regional airlines which may lead to their demise and could well disuade other business moguls from taking that initial risk - either way, we lose.

I would like to clarify one point:

Sparrowhawk wrote:

Ryanair has been proposing for some time to fly all passengers free and only charge them taxes and charges, on the condition you fly hand luggage only ... This would keep their Cargo hold free for the much more profitable airfreight

Ryanair operate an all-Boeing 737 fleet and they don't have 'containerised' cargo holds. All bags are 'loose loaded' which is both time consuming and error-prone. Freight is not a realistic option for a 737 in passenger configuration. By insisting on hand baggage only, Ryanair save money on:

- baggage handling staff
- expensive claims for lost or damaged bags
- expensive baggage forwarding by courier for bags that missed the flight
- fuel because the aircraft is lighter
- time because the turn-around relies on how quickly they get you off and on

One of the biggest cause of flight delays is hold baggage because UK law prohibits aircraft departing with bags in the hold belonging to someone who isn't sat onboard (as happened at Lockerbie). By preventing passengers from checking in bags, Ryanair can free themselves of the extra hassle which gives them a better chance of keeping to their schedules.

I will leave you with a hypothetical scenario:
A new startup low cost airline is trying to get off the ground (no pun intended) from a UK regional airport to sunnier climbs. Whilst boarding passengers, the pilots discover a technical defect that could result in considerable delays or even cancellation of the service - either way the airline is facing a huge bill, not only for the repair but also the new compensation due to the 200 or so passengers sat onboard. If the airline can somehow get the flight away within the 2 hour time limit, their compliance with the law is met and their profits secured. Would you be happy to be one of those 200 knowing the primary goal was profit before safety?!