-
There has been a lot of talk about extraordinary circumstances, and about the lengthy discussions with airlines, even arbitration and legal proceedings, needed to establish whether compensation is due or not in the event of delays and cancellations. It’s a pain for customers and I’m sure the airlines could do without it too. I am proposing the following alternative. All flights should have a small surcharge added for delay and cancellation insurance, and all flights delayed or cancelled for any reason result in the right to a pay-out for all passengers who apply, no questions asked. The surcharge levels could be recalculated each year to keep the airlines whole. Airlines would be happy as they are no longer out of pocket. Customers would be happy as they would get a nice little wad of cash to make them feel better about severe delays, with no need for arguments. Economically this is already the de facto position for ordinary circumstances, given that airlines in effect pass the cost of compensation on to customers through fares – this would just regularise the situation and bring transparency and simplicity to the process. It could even be offered as an opt-out or opt-in system for passengers (but compulsory for airlines to offer). Interested to hear people’s thoughts.
So I’d get a pay out if my flight is 5 minutes late?
Later you mention ‘severe’ delay but how long would a severe delay be? Would it vary depending on distance?
And people would still need to claim?
So just like EU/UK261?
And despite the impression posts on here give (a) very few flights are within scope of any sort of EU/UK261 payouts either compo or duty of care and (b) only a very small number require any sort of escalation to arbitration or MCOL.
So I’d get a pay out if my flight is 5 minutes late?
Later you mention ‘severe’ delay but how long would a severe delay be? Would it vary depending on distance?
And people would still need to claim?
So just like EU/UK261?
And despite the impression posts on here give (a) very few flights are within scope of any sort of EU/UK261 payouts either compo or duty of care and (b) only a very small number require any sort of escalation to arbitration or MCOL.
Length of delay would be same/similar as today.
You could have an automatic pay-out I guess but I would prefer to reduce the total cost by at least asking people to fill in a simple online form.
Not like EU/UK261 because:
i) airlines would have no right to deny payment as long as the delay met the time threshold – my experience is that some airlines almost automatically say no in response to the first contact meaning that only the confident/competent actually get paid
ii) covers ordinary and extraordinary circumstances – it’s more like a disappointment hedge than compensation for poor performanceHow much do you propose to set the initial surcharge at? And is it the same amount regardless of the cabin you book?
And how much would you get paid out? Bearing in mind that your scheme would automatically pay out.
Also do you propose to do away with the duty of care elements of the current system?
Initial surcharge – would need to be calculated such that expected cost to airlines is zero.
Compensation would be same regardless of cabin so as would surcharge
Roughly the same pay-out as under EC261 today – pay-out based on simple claim form not automatic.
Let’s say 5% of flights are required to pay and 50% of customers claim them if the pay-out is £250 then the surcharge would be £10.
No change to duty of care.
@Mouse – various insurance type schemes have been mooted in the past, but discarded on the basis that they would ultimately necessitate as many T&Cs as the present system and be just as costly to administer. You can also be sure that if any element of automaticity were to be introduced, payouts would be dramatically lower.
The present system, established 20 years ago, is clearly no longer fit for purpose and compensation levels are absurdly high relative to the huge reduction in fares but there’s little appetite for change or consensus on what change might look like. Passengers don’t like the present system, airlines absolutely hate it and local regulators think it’s rubbish and anyway mostly have a remit to support their domestic airlines as well as protect their domestic carriers. It’s ridiculous that airlines should have to pick up everyone’s hotel & restaurant bills if French air traffic controllers go on strike, an airport caps flights, a volcano erupts or there’s an ATC failure. That of course greatly suits the insurance industry.
Most passengers have no clue what UK261 says, because if you look it up, there isn’t even provision for delay compensation (even in the version the UK has now adopted) – that comes from a CJEU decision and there are about 70 other judgments that now govern that piece of legislation yet the EU/EC can’t even be bothered to update the law. The ordinary passenger ought to be able to ascertain the rules but in reality cannot access them, creating a huge claims industry.
It’s a complete mess, but don’t expect change any time soon. I doubt the UK will go it alone, save possibly to amend the rules in respect of UK domestic flights. In the UK, we now also have the problem as to whether EC261 can be enforced by ADR or MCOL.
@JDB it’s not that they can’t be bothered to update it but that the three separate institutions that need to agree the new regulation – the EU Parliament, the Commission and the Council of Ministers – couldn’t agree on a revised / replacement.
@JDB I agree with most of what you say but I think my proposal would enormously simplify the system for passengers and airlines and nullify much of the complexity introduced to EC261 by the case law. I’m sure you’re right on there being little possibility of this being implemented but it was intended as an exercise in blue sky thinking rather than a prediction of the near future.
@JDB it’s not that they can’t be bothered to update it but that the three separate institutions that need to agree the new regulation – the EU Parliament, the Commission and the Council of Ministers – couldn’t agree on a revised / replacement.
@BA Flyer IHG Stayer – I know the institutions can’t agree a replacement, so that was always too ambitious. I am merely talking about incorporating the 70 odd judgments into the law because as things stand, the official text of EC261 or UK261 is meaningless because those judgments have had the effect of rewriting large chunks rather than simply interpreting it.
I agree with @JDB what we have is a total mess.
I had a one hour notice of cancellation last Thursday, with no offer of an actual re-routing, it was just sort yourself out through the app.
For me being stranded is something that I really want to avoid.
I think the initial proposal is deeply flawed, if I was an airline, I’d set a threshold for each flight or return flight to decide when it’s better to just cancel and get the insurance pot to pay out. I can imagine easyJet and Ryanair getting very good at this.
I think there should be like a rail type system with delay repay. Behind the scenes Network rail, train operators and other parties thrash out who’s liable for each delay and those costs.
That way airlines, airports, NATS and anyone else would be forced to do their best to reduce delays just from the threat of financial compensation. Having said that, you’d also need to address airport price regulations so LHR don’t absolutely rinse it
@Super Secret Stuff I didn’t imagine it to be a general insurance pot – each airline would have to pay out for its own delays/cancellations – they would still be incentivised to minimise them
How would your proposal incentivise airlines to minimise delays / cancellations though?
The current regulation is designed to prevent short notice cancellations for reasons under their control by putting financial penalties / costs onto them.
@BA Flyer IHG Stayer – simple: if their flight is cancelled or excessively delayed then the have to pay out – how is that not an incentive? The surcharge calculation would be at an industry level so the best performers would profit and the worst would lose out.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Popular articles this week:
