Flight compensation to be reduced (by a lot).

[arknor]

Regulation for certain industries is important but it needs to be proportionate, which 1100% compensation is not. Your post reads like you assume this is money that was magically passing from airlines to consumers. In reality it was impacting the cost to airlines of operating a flight and thus driving up the ticket price.

its only for foreseen circumstances they could have avoided....... it's so they don't just cancel a flight because a planes needed for a more profitable one etc...

also it's not 2hour flight, its + hours at the airport and likely hours travelling to an airport.
you think everyone lives next to london or what?

 

[weringo]

its only for foreseen circumstances they could have avoided....... it's so they don't just cancel a flight because a planes needed for a more profitable one etc...

This is incorrect. Under the current rules airlines have to payout unless the delay was caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. This means that airlines have to payout in a number of routine situations where they have acted reasonably. For example an airline may have followed all aircraft maintenance schedules but if an engineer spots something that doesn't look quite right during a safety check the airline will have to delay the flight until it the issue has been sorted, and they will be liable to compensation if the delay is more than 2 hours. There was an ECJ case on this.

also it's not 2hour flight, its + hours at the airport and likely hours travelling to an airport.
you think everyone lives next to london or what?

A few hours delay at an airport is a minor inconvenience to most people and their time will hardly worth £220 in the vast majority of cases. If the delay requires you to stay overnight the airline is required to put you up in a hotel.

To be honest I don't really follow the rationale of the triggering a £220+ payout after just a 2 hour delay, which is not a lot of time in the grand scheme of things. It might at least make some sense in the case of say a 6+ hour delay which would be obviously of a significant inconvenience.

 

[1pudding1]

it's so they don't just cancel a flight because a planes needed for a more profitable one etc...

I work at an airline and we dont just choose to cancel a flight because there's a more profitable one we go and fly instead. We plan to fly them all. If a flight is cancelled, it's because a flight has to be cancelled because something has happened (plane broken/crew sick/out of hours/delays etc), no just a choice on the day to operate the one making the most money. We want to operate them all as they all make money. Of course, once a flight has to be cancelled, it makes sense to cancel the one with the least passengers on it and that has the lowest cost to the company, so there is choice on allocating a plane to the most profitable route at that point if possible.

 

[arknor]

I work at an airline and we dont just choose to cancel a flight because there's a more profitable one we go and fly instead. We plan to fly them all. If a flight is cancelled, it's because a flight has to be cancelled because something has happened (plane broken/crew sick/out of hours/delays etc), no just a choice on the day to operate the one making the most money. We want to operate them all as they all make money. Of course, once a flight has to be cancelled, it makes sense to cancel the one with the least passengers on it and that has the lowest cost to the company, so there is choice on allocating a plane to the most profitable route at that point if possible.

isn't that contradicting yourself.... makes sense you compensate the people your choosing to strand but don't have to.

 

[1pudding1]

Not really. 1 flight has to be cancelled. Do you cancel the one that has 50pax, or had 150pax. Compo can be £50 or £500, answer would be the same.

 

[englishpremier]

I saw a video a while back that demonstrated that going from the centre of Edinburgh to the centre of London took about the same time by plane and by train thanks to the airport security checks and the time taken to get to and from the airports. The time difference is much greater from Aberdeen - the train often becomes a stopping train between Aberdeen and Edinburgh whereas it's just an extra 30 minutes' flight - but the whole rail experience is just so much nicer. Especially if you book well in advance and score a cheap first class ticket.

Sounds like they cherry picked the flights.

I was previously living in Norwich, so getting the airport would be 10-20mins at most. Regional airports aren't usually busy, so you arrive much closer to your flight time, and security is obviously massively quicker than somewhere like Luton or Stanstead (which is the worst I've ever seen). Flighting to Manchester, Exeter, Wales (if they flew there), Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Amsterdam etc.. are all likely to be quicker and less hassle than the train. Even Norwich to Birmingham could be worth a flight depending on the time of day.

 

[chrcoluk]

Generally these type of compensation schemes dont get setup without good reason, so I expect it was done to prevent abuse by the industry.

 

[Quartz]

and security is obviously massively quicker than somewhere like Luton or Stanstead

I don't know about Stanstead but I've been through Luton (though not for some years) and Aberdeen and while Luton can be much slower than Aberdeen, if you hit a busy time at Aberdeen Airport it can be much the same as Luton. Luton is set up for large numbers; Aberdeen is not.

 

[Meridian]

Regulation for certain industries is important but it needs to be proportionate, which 1100% compensation is not. Your post reads like you assume this is money that was magically passing from airlines to consumers. In reality it was impacting the cost to airlines of operating a flight and thus driving up the ticket price.

No, it adds costs. That the airline decides to punish passengers rather than (say) managers (but reducing pay) or shareholders (by reducing dividends) is a decision, not the only possible result. And the purpose of the high cost is to make the airline think twice before delaying flights, rather than just going: "**** 'em they're only passengers".

 

[muon]

Remember a lot of these claims are due to deliberate overbooking of flights. If the cost to me as an airline is now capped at just providing a refund (or a bit more) to those customers and them having to fork out hundreds for new flights at the last second, then I know what airlines will do.

If you want to be compensated based on your valued level of inconvenience you are free to purchase travel insurance which will pay out for delayed or cancelled flights. No other industry is required to pay 1100% compensation to its customers so why should airlines? Train companies are not required to make any similar payouts.

Airlines already have dozens of reasons not to delay or cancel flights. For example:
- the plane will likely be in the wrong place, meaning the cancellation of further flights elsewhere and more compensation due
- paying for staff to be put up in a hotel
- additional airport take-off / landing fees

Even after the reforms there will still be thousands of pounds due to customers for a delayed or cancelled flight

Why do airlines overbook flights? By accident? Nope, they look at the benefits of selling a seat twice over against the cost of a customer complaining. You reduce the cost, I may as well sell plenty of seats twice over and gamble as I might not have much to lose.