Package travel regulations - loss of enjoyment

phillips101

To what extent was it the agent's fault though?  The PTRs do ultimately hold the package organiser liable for performance of the package, but presumably the issue here arose from an airline cancelling a flight, or was the agent deficient in coming up with suitable alternative arrangements?

Well you're right in that this is not directly the agent's fault, it is the airline's fault. The airline had a mechanical failure and the plane we needed never made it to hawaii. The agent refused to give us any alternatives at all, because AirNZ offered us this absolutely ludicrous itinerary.

Instead of flying from Hawaii to NZ direct, we had to fly back to california (where we had just come from!) for a layover, to turn around and fly to NZ - flying over hawaii along the way!

The agent point blank refused to do anything except tell us to take AirNZ's itinerary. They said they could do nothing for us at all (it was at this point we asked to be sent home and cancel the rest of the trip - they refused). Perhaps we should have told them to get lost, booked a better alternative ourselves, and claimed it back later on via PTR, but we weren't thinking right at the time considering this all came to light at 4am hawaii time!

Hoenir

phillips101 said:

I've never seen that included as part of a holiday package.  Tenuous to say the least. 

It's true that wasn't a line they put into my itinerary! But it does play a very large part in how furious I am - we paid this travel agent to get us to this country as part of a package, so we could see very sick family members who were unable to make it to our wedding, and might never be able to visit the UK again.

But it got all !!!!!! up, and we couldn't visit. The travel agent did not deliver me the time in New Zealand that I needed, that I had bought from them in the package.

Some of the events that occurred were beyond the Travel agents control. Did you fall into the trap of packing too much into your itenary. While expecting evertything to run like clockwork. Very easy to do. 

phillips101

Some of the events that occurred were beyond the Travel agents control.

Here I do disagree with you. The events were beyond the agent's control, but not beyond the airline's. The airline should have caught the issue with the plane during routine maintenance, and had no flight cancellations as a result. The PTR allows us to transfer this failure to the agent, to let travellers claim compensation more easily. It's the entire point of the legislation really.

If the agent isn't happy with this level of risk, they should stop offering flights from that airline, or stop selling the route that I took that was "too risky".

I am confident on this part of it at least!

If I had bought the flights individually, not as part of a package, I'd agree with you that I probably tried to do too much. However the point of the package is indeed to have it run like clockwork. I do believe it's the agents failure here selling me a risky flight in a package.

eskbanker

phillips101 said:

To what extent was it the agent's fault though?  The PTRs do ultimately hold the package organiser liable for performance of the package, but presumably the issue here arose from an airline cancelling a flight, or was the agent deficient in coming up with suitable alternative arrangements?

Well you're right in that this is not directly the agent's fault, it is the airline's fault. The airline had a mechanical failure and the plane we needed never made it to hawaii. The agent refused to give us any alternatives at all, because AirNZ offered us this absolutely ludicrous itinerary.

Instead of flying from Hawaii to NZ direct, we had to fly back to california (where we had just come from!) for a layover, to turn around and fly to NZ - flying over hawaii along the way!

The agent point blank refused to do anything except tell us to take AirNZ's itinerary. They said they could do nothing for us at all (it was at this point we asked to be sent home and cancel the rest of the trip - they refused). Perhaps we should have told them to get lost, booked a better alternative ourselves, and claimed it back later on via PTR, but we weren't thinking right at the time considering this all came to light at 4am hawaii time!

But were there better alternatives available?  In general, an airline cancelling a flight retains the responsibility to carry the passengers on the next one with space, so it's understandable that the default option would be to go with AirNZ's itinerary, but if it was 'absolutely ludicrous' in the sense that there genuinely were more appropriate options available then perhaps there'd have been scope for discussion?

phillips101

But were there better alternatives available?  In general, an airline cancelling a flight retains the responsibility to carry the passengers on the next one with space, so it's understandable that the default option would be to go with AirNZ's itinerary, but if it was 'absolutely ludicrous' in the sense that there genuinely were more appropriate options available then perhaps there'd have been scope for discussion?

There were. There was one itinerary that left us in Hawaii and waited two days I think for the same flight to come get us again. This would have been a larger delay in arrival in NZ, but it wouldn't have been "wasted days" as we would still be on holiday instead of in hell on the longest flight itinerary I have ever been on in my life. The agent said in this case that neither insurance nor airnz would pay for extra Hawaii accom, and there'd be nothing they could do either.

There were other indirect flights too, at about 15 hours total length and faster arrival time. I would have preferred a 15 hour itinerary over a 36 hour itinerary.

But the agent just refused. They said we would have to take the offered airnz flight and there's nothing the agency could do for us while that was on the table. 

This was before I had read the PTR of course, having never had holiday problems before. And again it was 4am so we were !!!!!! off and exhausted, not thinking straight.

eskbanker

phillips101 said:

But were there better alternatives available?  In general, an airline cancelling a flight retains the responsibility to carry the passengers on the next one with space, so it's understandable that the default option would be to go with AirNZ's itinerary, but if it was 'absolutely ludicrous' in the sense that there genuinely were more appropriate options available then perhaps there'd have been scope for discussion?

There were. There was one itinerary that left us in Hawaii and waited two days I think for the same flight to come get us again. This would have been a larger delay in arrival in NZ, but it wouldn't have been "wasted days" as we would still be on holiday instead of in hell on the longest flight itinerary I have ever been on in my life. The agent said in this case that neither insurance nor airnz would pay for extra Hawaii accom, and there'd be nothing they could do either.

There were other indirect flights too, at about 15 hours total length and faster arrival time. I would have preferred a 15 hour itinerary over a 36 hour itinerary.

But the agent just refused. They said we would have to take the offered airnz flight and there's nothing the agency could do for us while that was on the table. 

This was before I had read the PTR of course, having never had holiday problems before. And again it was 4am so we were !!!!!! off and exhausted, not thinking straight.

I can see why you'd have considered it preferable to have spent a couple more days on holiday in Hawaii rather than in transit, but conversely don't believe that airline or agent would be obliged to fund that option if more expensive than the one you ended up with.  I'm not sure there's anything in the PTRs that would require the agent to offer an itinerary that you'd find more suitable than that proposed by the airline, especially any that would have involved other airlines, so, even though it's not unreasonable to ask for something better, they're not necessarily obliged to comply?

phillips101

so, even though it's not unreasonable to ask for something better, they're not necessarily obliged to comply?

I don't entirely disagree with this tbh. I do think they should have offered us a refund and a route home at the time (36 hours constitutes a major change imo), but also even though it's not their fault it is a loss due to an avoidable airline mess which does leave them liable (I hope...)

eskbanker

phillips101 said:

so, even though it's not unreasonable to ask for something better, they're not necessarily obliged to comply?

I don't entirely disagree with this tbh. I do think they should have offered us a refund and a route home at the time (36 hours constitutes a major change imo), but also even though it's not their fault it is a loss due to an avoidable airline mess which does leave them liable (I hope...)

I haven't gone through them again in detail, but the references in the PTRs regarding significant changes are in the context of the package being changed before it starts, is there a clause that you're thinking of that would oblige the agent to truncate the package and fly you home?

phillips101 said:
The events were beyond the agent's control, but not beyond the airline's. The airline should have caught the issue with the plane during routine maintenance, and had no flight cancellations as a result. The PTR allows us to transfer this failure to the agent, to let travellers claim compensation more easily. It's the entire point of the legislation really.

If the agent isn't happy with this level of risk, they should stop offering flights from that airline, or stop selling the route that I took that was "too risky".

I am confident on this part of it at least!

If I had bought the flights individually, not as part of a package, I'd agree with you that I probably tried to do too much. However the point of the package is indeed to have it run like clockwork. I do believe it's the agents failure here selling me a risky flight in a package.

With all due respect, this stuff about the flight being 'risky' has no basis in reality!  All airlines suffer mechanical issues, despite their best efforts to avoid them, or do you have evidence that ANZ cancels more flights for this reason than comparable international flag carriers?

phillips101

With all due respect, this stuff about the flight being 'risky' has no basis in reality!  All airlines suffer mechanical issues, despite their best efforts to avoid them, or do you have evidence that ANZ cancels more flights for this reason than comparable international flag carriers?

No I was just being facetious really. The route itself is risky in business terms for them as there aren't many flights flying it direct. My point was if the agent is not willing to accept its responsibilities under PTR then it shouldn't sell the route, as claims would obviously be larger if there are few and far between replacement flights when stuff does go wrong. I'm just saying I have no sympathy, they know the PTR and they sold me this route.

I haven't gone through them again in detail, but the references in the PTRs regarding significant changes are in the context of the package being changed before it starts, is there a clause that you're thinking of that would oblige the agent to truncate the package and fly you home?

Yes it's in part 4.10 ish onwards. It says 

(8) Where the organiser is unable to provide a significant proportion of the travel services as agreed in the package travel contract, the organiser must offer, at no extra cost to the traveller,suitable alternative arrangements of, where possible, equivalent or higher quality than those specified in the contract, for the continuation of the package, including where the traveller’s return to the place of departure is agreed

(10) The traveller may reject the proposed alternative arrangements offered under paragraph (8) only if— (a) they are not comparable to the arrangements which were agreed in the package travel contract; or (b) the price reduction granted is inadequate.

(11) Where— (a) a lack of conformity substantially affects the performance of the package; and (b) the organiser fails to remedy the lack of conformity within the reasonable period, the traveller may terminate the package travel contract without paying a termination fee and, where appropriate, is entitled to a price reduction, or compensation for damages, or both, in accordance with regulation 16.

(12) If— (a) the organiser is unable to make alternative arrangements, or (b) the traveller rejects the proposed alternative arrangements in accordance with paragraph (10), the traveller is, where appropriate, entitled to a price reduction, or compensation for damages, or both, in accordance with regulation 16 without terminating the package travel contract.

(13) If the package includes the carriage of passengers, the organiser must, in the cases referred to in paragraphs (11) and (12), also provide repatriation of the traveller with equivalent transport without undue delay and at no extra cost to the traveller.

8: They were unable to provide a significant portion of the package (2+ missed days. I believe I read somewhere that significant was 'about 12 hours').

10: We did not want to fly the new itinerary, so we fall under:

11: We felt the lower class flight travels and dreadful itineraries severely detracted from the concept of a luxury business class around the world trip. Indeed we were miserable due to stress and really wanted to go home. The agent was not able to fix our itinerary (get us to NZ in an appropriate amount of time - it might well have been impossible to but that is not our problem - they sold us the route).

That means that we should have been able to cancel. And under 13 that means we should have been flown home.

EDIT: But anyway, that's all incidental really. It isn't the basis for any current complaint to the travel agency

eskbanker

phillips101 said:

(8) Where the organiser is unable to provide a significant proportion of the travel services as agreed in the package travel contract, the organiser must offer, at no extra cost to the traveller,suitable alternative arrangements of, where possible, equivalent or higher quality than those specified in the contract, for the continuation of the package, including where the traveller’s return to the place of departure is agreed

8: They were unable to provide a significant portion of the package (2+ missed days. I believe I read somewhere that significant was 'about 12 hours').

I don't believe there's an accepted definition of significant in this context, and imagine that the agent would argue that a 36 hour flight delay in the middle of a 32 day holiday isn't sufficient to trigger this clause, and therefore all the subsequent ones, but a court might disagree.

One other aspect that hasn't been mentioned is the status of the agent - is this a reputable company that's a member of ABTA, who offer an escalation/arbitration process?