Baggage left behind

CelticFire

Grumpy_chap said:

mr_stripey said:

In response to OP - t makes no sense that airlines would be deliberately and intentionally not loading bags onto aircraft. To what end exactly? They still have to ship the bags (at a greater cost no doubt as they will need to be delivered to individual addresses rather than unloaded at one point).

Operationally it makes no sense. Incidents and disruptions happen and by and large the system reunites bags with passengers reasonably quickly and efficiently.

While I don't think departure without luggage is a key plank of any airline business model, I think that comment about cost is exactly the point the OP was trying to make:

• A flight can leave late and trigger delay compensation, £200 or more per passenger.
• That flight being delayed might mean subsequent flights in the day also trigger delay compensation.
• OR, the flight can leave late but soon enough to avoid the delay compensation, but without baggage.  The cost for reuniting baggage with passenger only needs to be lower than the delay compensation for this to make financial business sense.
• The flight departing means there is not a knock-on impact to the subsequent flights scheduled for the same aircraft.
• In any event, it is quite likely that fewer passengers have hold baggage than there would be passenger on the flight, so the cost is only multiplied by a smaller number of times.

I still don't think airlines would be adopting this as a strategy on a wide basis.

If airlines do, then it is kind of what we get by developing the compensation culture.  I guess mail order delivery suppliers have to build something in to the cost for returns "for any or no reason" and some of those returns being unsellable.  Airlines must be similar in managing an allowance and mitigation for compensation payments.  Obviously, we all want everything for the lowest possible price as well.  And now, someone wants great service too.  These are not all compatible desires.

I offer three types of service, you can pick any two:

• good service fast won't be cheap
• good service cheap won't be fast
• fast service good won't be cheap
• fast service cheap won't be good
• cheap service fast won't be good
• cheap service good won't be fast

Thanks for actually reading what I had asked.  That’s exactly the point I was making.  It appeared that something that was a rare occurrence previously, seemed to be happening more frequently and I was curious as to how widespread the practice is.  Whilst I understand the economics of their risk assessment. On both occasions I’ve experienced, it has been around 100 suitcases each time.  Whilst it clearly saves money, there is also a reputational risk which could prove more costly. 

Grumpy_chap

CelticFire said:

On both occasions I’ve experienced, it has been around 100 suitcases each time.  

Well, that would make sense.
When suitcases are loaded onto a plane, they do not manually load each individual case.  The cases are conveyor-belted to drop into large steel crates and the relatively small number of crates are then loaded into the hold.  I don't know how many cases fit into one crate, but it would be a good number and not just a small handful of cases that fail to make the flight.

Pollycat

Grumpy_chap said:

CelticFire said:

On both occasions I’ve experienced, it has been around 100 suitcases each time.  

Well, that would make sense.
When suitcases are loaded onto a plane, they do not manually load each individual case.  The cases are conveyor-belted to drop into large steel crates and the relatively small number of crates are then loaded into the hold.  I don't know how many cases fit into one crate, but it would be a good number and not just a small handful of cases that fail to make the flight.

I've been sat on planes both here and abroad and have watched handlers load individual cases from trollies brought to the plane onto conveyer belts and into the hold.

Westin

Pollycat said:

Grumpy_chap said:

CelticFire said:

On both occasions I’ve experienced, it has been around 100 suitcases each time.  

Well, that would make sense.
When suitcases are loaded onto a plane, they do not manually load each individual case.  The cases are conveyor-belted to drop into large steel crates and the relatively small number of crates are then loaded into the hold.  I don't know how many cases fit into one crate, but it would be a good number and not just a small handful of cases that fail to make the flight.

I've been sat on planes both here and abroad and have watched handlers load individual cases from trollies brought to the plane onto conveyer belts and into the hold.

You are right @Pollycat.    Whilst larger aircraft will have containerised baggage, many aircraft still have manually loaded individual bags being placed in the cargo holds and secured with netting.  Non-containerised baggage is typical on most of our holiday charter/low-cost airline fleets such as the A319/A320/A321 Airbus and also the B737 Boeings.

NoodleDoodleMan

Pollycat said:

Grumpy_chap said:

CelticFire said:

On both occasions I’ve experienced, it has been around 100 suitcases each time.  

Well, that would make sense.
When suitcases are loaded onto a plane, they do not manually load each individual case.  The cases are conveyor-belted to drop into large steel crates and the relatively small number of crates are then loaded into the hold.  I don't know how many cases fit into one crate, but it would be a good number and not just a small handful of cases that fail to make the flight.

I've been sat on planes both here and abroad and have watched handlers load individual cases from trollies brought to the plane onto conveyer belts and into the hold.

Ditto - my my experience likewise.

justice4521

I had an identical situation this year. I had a quick read of the previous responses, most people didn't seem to understand the issue being discussed here.

I had a flight route earlier this year, with a (late night) transfer at Warsaw, both flights operated by LOT airlines. I had 1 checked-in bag. Originally, there was meant to be 50 minutes between flight 1 landing and flight 2 taking off. Flight 1 was delayed by 45 minutes and upon landing, I was rushed to flight 2 by LOT staff, which took off within 10 minutes. Upon taking off so soon, it became clear to me that the airport staff would have not had the opportunity to transfer my bag between 2 planes within 10 minutes.

Lo and behold, upon landing at my destination, I discovered my bag had not arrived and was declared lost by LOT. There were at least 2 more passengers (on the same route) in an identical situation, which indicated a systemic issue during the transfer, rather than a standalone lost bag case. I assumed LOT just left the bags behind so flight 2 could take off on time and that they would just send the bags on the next flight. However, for 5 days, LOT informed me that my bag was lost until they "found" it at Warsaw airport and sent it to me.

Upon investigating the situation, LOT stated that their maximum compensation for delayed bags is only $100, for buying necessities. However, if I had missed my transfer flight, LOT would have had to provide overnight accommodation and booked me on the next flight, as required under EU Air Passengers Rights Regulation 2004 (Regulation (EC) No 261/2004). This would have cost LOT significantly more than $100. Apparently, Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 does not cover baggage issues and delayed baggage compensation is governed by the Montreal Convention, which did not stop LOT from limiting their delayed baggage compensation by $100.

In short, LOT knowingly boarded me onto a connecting flight despite being aware of the impossibility of transferring my bag (given the 10 minute timeframe between the connecting flights).

In doing so, LOT capped its loss by $100, instead of costs of overnight accommodation & rerouting. If I was told there was no time for the bag transfer, I would have clearly opted to stay in Warsaw that night and fly the next day. Instead, I was stranded abroad for 5 days with no clothing, medicine, business documents, etc.

I contacted Polish Office of the Passengers’ Rights Ombudsman at the Civil Aviation Authority, who stated that they cannot assist as they only cover Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (flight delays more than 3 hours etc.). I was unable to find an authority who cover issues related to the Montreal Convention (bag delay issues).

So, yes, it seems clear to me that airlines can knowingly leave your bags behind, to minimize their regulatory obligations and get away with it. The situation falls into a legal limbo, outside the scope of EU regulations and inadequately protected by the Montreal Convention, allowing airlines to exploit passengers without accountability.

eskbanker

justice4521 said:

If I was told there was no time for the bag transfer, I would have clearly opted to stay in Warsaw that night and fly the next day. Instead, I was stranded abroad for 5 days with no clothing, medicine, business documents, etc.

You may consider it obvious but some passengers, especially those on their way home, would probably prefer to travel asap even if it means their bags don't keep up, and in any case, if you'd flown the next day, you'd still have had four days at your destination without your luggage as well as having arrived late!

Your assertion that it's a deliberate cost reduction ploy is basically no less speculative than OP's view that it's an actual business model - perhaps understandable to be cynical when mucked about but that doesn't actually prove anything....

zagfles

I'd almost always prefer to make a connection than getting an overnight delay and lose a day of holiday or whatever the trip is for. I always have enough clothes in cabin baggage to last a few days and definitely any medicines and important documents etc. 

saajan_12

justice4521 said:

I had a flight route earlier this year, with a (late night) transfer at Warsaw, both flights operated by LOT airlines. I had 1 checked-in bag. Originally, there was meant to be 50 minutes between flight 1 landing and flight 2 taking off. Flight 1 was delayed by 45 minutes and upon landing, I was rushed to flight 2 by LOT staff, which took off within 10 minutes. Upon taking off so soon, it became clear to me that the airport staff would have not had the opportunity to transfer my bag between 2 planes within 10 minutes.

...

In doing so, LOT capped its loss by $100, instead of costs of overnight accommodation & rerouting. If I was told there was no time for the bag transfer, I would have clearly opted to stay in Warsaw that night and fly the next day. Instead, I was stranded abroad for 5 days with no clothing, medicine, business documents, etc.
.

If you could have flown 1 day late then the expectation would have been that the bag alone could have gotten there 1 day late. In that case I don't think its "clear" that most people would prefer <passenger + bag 1 day late> vs <passenger on time, bag 1 day late>. Your particular case is exacerbated by a potentially separate issue of lost luggage, which theoretically could have happened even if everything was on time, and shouldn't necessarily muddy the waters of what the airline intended when trying to board you. 

I've had a tight turnaround due to late first leg, and knew full well the bags were never sprinting across the gates like I was. The airline couriered the bag full of ski gear by car to the middle of the mountains, plus covered rental gear for the first day, costing them likely more than the delayed passenger compo.. basically I don't think the gate staff are doing those sums. 


Re if its the business model: 
Lets say it is the policy to not delay a flight full of 100s of passengers to wait for baggage or make affected passengers wait for the the next flight so they travel with baggage and incur the resulting penalties - that's not necessarily wrong. 
The aim of the penalties is to encourage airlines to get people to destinations on time, not to earn money for passengers. The missed ATC slot and the passenger delay penalties are higher because they cause more inconvenience to those or other passengers. 

Grumpy_chap

saajan_12 said:

Re if its the business model: 
Lets say it is the policy to not delay a flight 

This is not just the impact of flight delay compensations.
The need to keep flights moving as close to time as possible is driven by far more costs. 
It is not uncommon for the time on a stand to be limited 15 minutes in and 15 minutes out - that means the plane has to turn around in 30 minutes.
Then, the knock-on impacts of a delay.  So, the morning flight out from UK base to holiday land is the lunch time flight back and the afternoon flight out and the evening return.  These are tightly sequenced.  Delay the morning flight out by 30 minutes, all the other flights are then delayed through the day.  Add another 30 minute delay at some point and then you find the crew are out of hours to make the evening return...