-
My in-laws cannot now come on our villa holiday with us and we have other relatives lined up to use their room. I have peak Saturday to Saturday flights booked in their names . Its great that I can cancel and only lose £30 , but I was wondering if I can change the names on the booking ? Thanks
No, only the likes of Ryanair allow name changes.
It’s £35 pp to cancel a BA booking, unless you paid less than this for the cash element. Also the seats aren’t guaranteed to reappear if you cancel this close in.
No, only the likes of Ryanair allow name changes.
It will be too late for the OP but amongst various bits of bad news for passengers in the proposed EC261 changes, one of the better news proposals is that airlines could be forced to allow name changes.
My in-laws cannot now come on our villa holiday with us and we have other relatives lined up to use their room. I have peak Saturday to Saturday flights booked in their names . It’s great that I can cancel and only lose £30 , but I was wondering if I can change the names on the booking ? Thanks
Your in-laws can no longer make it?! Sounds like you’ve hit the jackpot !!
It will be too late for the OP but amongst various bits of bad news for passengers in the proposed EC261 changes, one of the better news proposals is that airlines could be forced to allow name changes.
Wouldn’t affect 3rd country based airlines though would it?
And EU based airlines will fight this tooth and nail and have numerous allies in airlines across the world that fly into and out of the EU.
It will be too late for the OP but amongst various bits of bad news for passengers in the proposed EC261 changes, one of the better news proposals is that airlines could be forced to allow name changes.
Wouldn’t affect 3rd country based airlines though would it?
And EU based airlines will fight this tooth and nail and have numerous allies in airlines across the world that fly into and out of the EU.
It’s part of a package signed off by EU ministers but still needs to be approved by the European Parliament, so far from certain. It’s going to be very messy if the UK doesn’t follow the same arrangements.
We are a 3rd country now so it will always be messy when regulations don’t match,
Doesn’t seem to bother the Israelis and Canadians and the countries with no regulations.
Apparently messes like this as what we voted for!
It really annoys me that UK and EU airlines have this legislation but non EU/UK don’t.
If they are flying into the UK/EU then it should be the same rules.
It gives them an unfair financial advantage and when it all goes wrong it really is, pay cheap, pay twiceIt really annoys me that UK and EU airlines have this legislation but non EU/UK don’t.
If they are flying into the UK/EU then it should be the same rules.
It gives them an unfair financial advantage and when it all goes wrong it really is, pay cheap, pay twiceYes, it’s the huge financial disadvantage to EU airlines that is bringing about this change – i.e. trying to remove the EU imposed self harm on its own businesses. It doesn’t work the other way round as we/EU can’t impose the costs on third country airlines who already enjoy so many advantages that don’t apply to European airlines.
Why can’t the EU/UK make the rules the same for foreign carriers?
If you are flying from the UK/EU to the US, an American airline is on the hook for legally enforceable compensation for delays. Why couldn’t the same compensation be a legal requirement for inbound flights?
And if it can’t be, then scrap the requirement on inbound flights for all carriers.
Although the playing field may be more level than it appears to be.
In the case of TATL, BA will mainly be paying compensation on Eastbound flights where they don’t have standby aircraft and crew readily available. AA will pay compensation on Westbound flights where they have the same restraints.
@Alex G – as posted previously, it’s a question of extra-territoriality of legislation. It could be done via reciprocal agreements with individual countries but cannot be imposed on them unilaterally.
It really annoys me that UK and EU airlines have this legislation but non EU/UK don’t.
If they are flying into the UK/EU then it should be the same rules.
It gives them an unfair financial advantage and when it all goes wrong it really is, pay cheap, pay twiceThe thing that annoys me is that non-EU airlines airfares aren’t any cheaper to buy. I can accept the idea that you have fewer protections if you choose to fly on a non-EU /non-UK airline but you should pay less as a result.
What I would like to see is UK/EU rules extend to non-UK / non-EU based airlines on inbound flights if you buy a codeshare flight eg a BA flight number on Qatar metal. The whole point of a codeshare is that you are sold a seat on the premise that it doesn’t matter who operates the flight you are still a customer of the airline that sold you the flight. The airlines that codeshare reduce their costs by doing so. And with the joint business thing with AA/BA/IB/AY they share revenue regardless of the actual aurline you buy from. And yet you lose EC261 rights if you fly on non-EU/UK metal. Or have I misunderstood and you do still have EC261 protection if you have a UK/EU airline flight number?
@AJA – the simple and technical answer is that the codeshare or booking airline doesn’t give you any 261 rights which are the responsibility of the operating airline. The fact that BA, in booking you say a QR operated flight in bound to the UK with a BA flight number, is acting as your agent may give rise to certain rights but will require a fair bit of work to exercise. We can’t impose these rules on third country airlines and it wouldn’t seem fair as a matter of to impose one airline’s delays on another.
@AJA the regulation is written that the operating airline is responsible not the ticketting one.
I think people need to be careful of what they appear to wish for.
Making an airline that isn’t flying you liable for the actions of the one that is just because you bought a ticket from them will have lots of unintended consequences and could actually result in less choice and less flexibility for passengers.
Thanks so I am correct in my understanding. There is no EC261 protection on a codeshare flight operated by another non-UK / non-EC airline.
Why would extending coverage result in less choice for the customer? I think you’re suggesting that fewer codeshares would be the result but would that really happen?
In my experience buying a codeshare flight doesn’t necessarily result in the fare being cheaper – sometimes its actually more expensive. But it does make it appear as if the marketing airline has a better schedule than it really does.
Imagine the fall in reputation BA would suffer, particularly going east if it stopped codeshares with Qatar.
BA would have to reinstate a lot more routes to be able to complete. That might actually be in the consumer interest as airlines would genuinely compete for the business though I can also see a potential downside in operating monopolies on certain routes but isn’t that what codeshares are already masking?Codeshares work by reducing costs for the airlines and allowing the partner airline to sell seats that might otherwise go unsold on the operating airline. And makes it appear that the marketing airline operates a wider network than it actually does.
There are definitely some advantages to codesharing but many of the advantages could be achieved by interlining.
Not sure what added value there is beyond that to be gained for a customer from buying a codeshare flight marketed by one airline and operated by another?
But I will stop now as this has strayed from the original point of this thread.
Wouldn’t allowing name changes open up the whole f***ed-up ticket re-selling market?? Can’t see that being good for consumers….??
Personally I think the current compensation is far too high, and unrelated to the ticket cost. Perhaps a 50%-100% refund on a sliding scale of delay would be more appropriate, with actual proper subsistence provided for delays of over 2 hours (e.g. £30/PAX or a lounge pass)
I can see airlines pushing back because of what @Ihar says, and also because someone who can’t or doesn’t want to fly on a non-refundable booking could just transfer it to someone else, who then won’t have to pay for a new ticket!
Thanks so I am correct in my understanding. There is no EC261 protection on a codeshare flight operated by another non-UK / non-EC airline.
Why would extending coverage result in less choice for the customer? I think you’re suggesting that fewer codeshares would be the result but would that really happen?
In my experience buying a codeshare flight doesn’t necessarily result in the fare being cheaper – sometimes its actually more expensive. But it does make it appear as if the marketing airline has a better schedule than it really does.
Imagine the fall in reputation BA would suffer, particularly going east if it stopped codeshares with Qatar.
BA would have to reinstate a lot more routes to be able to complete. That might actually be in the consumer interest as airlines would genuinely compete for the business though I can also see a potential downside in operating monopolies on certain routes but isn’t that what codeshares are already masking?Codeshares work by reducing costs for the airlines and allowing the partner airline to sell seats that might otherwise go unsold on the operating airline. And makes it appear that the marketing airline operates a wider network than it actually does.
There are definitely some advantages to codesharing but many of the advantages could be achieved by interlining.
Not sure what added value there is beyond that to be gained for a customer from buying a codeshare flight marketed by one airline and operated by another?
Wouldn’t allowing name changes open up the whole f***ed-up ticket re-selling market?? Can’t see that being good for consumers….??
Personally I think the current compensation is far too high, and unrelated to the ticket cost. Perhaps a 50%-100% refund on a sliding scale of delay would be more appropriate, with actual proper subsistence provided for delays of over 2 hours (e.g. £30/PAX or a lounge pass)
A change of passenger won’t be allowed per the text agreed by EU ministers to be added to the legislation. It’s not yet clear whether (once the political agreement of last week is voted on by the European Parliament) the UK will adopt the new rules in full, in part or at all.
Thank goodness for that! Having read the proposal it mostly makes sense (to me) with a few surprises. Most notable the proposal that a “no-show” doesn’t automatically result in the cancellation of the rest of the ticket journey. I’d imagine UK carriers will be lobbying hard for the reduced compensation claims.
Thank goodness for that! Having read the proposal it mostly makes sense (to me) with a few surprises. Most notable the proposal that a “no-show” doesn’t automatically result in the cancellation of the rest of the ticket journey. I’d imagine UK carriers will be lobbying hard for the reduced compensation claims.
The reduced compensation with extension to allowable delays, cap on rerouting costs, change to technical problems as extraordinary circumstances, staff sickness/death now may be considered extraordinary circumstances, certain strikes by airline staff may be considered extraordinary circumstances, removal of the effective requirement of an EU carrier to cover delays on a non-EU carrier as part of through trip. Lots of watering down!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Popular articles this week:
