Does EU261 cover extra costs of rebooking ?

canary2211

KLM bounced us off an overbooked flight to Japan from a uk regional airport. there was no acceptable alternative flight so we cancelled and KLM immediately refunded original ticket cost. We were able to rebook with another carrier but from Heathrow. 

KLM have paid the EU261 compensation of £520 each. But are refusing to pay additional travel costs of home to Heathrow, and the cost of a lost hotel night in Japan and a lost event ticket in Japan. They say the compensation is designed to cover such costs and/or the costs are too ‘remote’ and are not foreseeable. 

Are they right? Or shall I continue to press? 

Thanks.  

la531983

They wont be responsible for "consequential loss", that is what your travel insurance is for.

eskbanker

As above, they're not liable for the wasted costs in Japan, but should have funded the entirety of your transportation from your originally booked departure point to your destination.

Their obligation under the regulations is to offer you the choice between a refund and rebooking (under comparable transport conditions and at the earliest opportunity), so if you found an better alternative routing (even on another carrier) than they were prepared to offer then they should pick up the tab for that rather than refunding.  Which alternatives did they suggest and did you propose your preferred one to them?

canary2211

They offered the same route but four days later (unacceptable loss to us of holiday trip time) or a reroute via Amsterdam, Paris and Warsaw which included a 35 minute transfer time (unacceptable transfer risk). 

So we accepted refund. 

As it happens the replacement flight was slightly cheaper than original KLM flights (but three hour train instead of 15 minutes taxi to our local regional airport ) 

incidentally one of party has mobility difficulties and was travelling as such with special assistance. Article 9 of 261 requires carrier to take special care - but unclear what this means or consequences of not doing so. Special care would have been to not bounce us! 

Still they know they have lost a regular customer. Not that they care!

eskbanker

canary2211 said:

They offered the same route but four days later (unacceptable loss to us of holiday trip time) or a reroute via Amsterdam, Paris and Warsaw which included a 35 minute transfer time (unacceptable transfer risk). 

So we accepted refund. 

But did you ask them to rebook you onto your preferred alternative on the other carrier (plus reimbursing costs to LHR)?  Once you accept the refund then it weakens your case to pursue anything related to rebooking, but if you have evidence that they actually refused a reasonable suggestion to travel at the earliest opportunity and under comparable transport conditions, then that might help overcome that.

canary2211 said:

incidentally one of party has mobility difficulties and was travelling as such with special assistance. Article 9 of 261 requires carrier to take special care - but unclear what this means or consequences of not doing so. Special care would have been to not bounce us! 

The article 9 wording relates specifically to the provision of meals, accommodation and transport while waiting for a flight:

In applying this Article, the operating air carrier shall pay particular attention to the needs of persons with reduced mobility and any persons accompanying them, as well as to the needs of unaccompanied children.

rather than influencing the decision of who is denied boarding.

canary2211

Thank you for the very detailed reply. No we didn’t ask them to rebook us so our case is weak.  I might look at travel insurance.