But why should the airline bear the cost of things like weather that are out of their control? Why shouldn't pax have to bear the financial brunt of a service that ends up costing more than what the ideal was?
Airlines operate in an environment where weather is a factor out of their control, yet they still have to offer a ticket from A to B a year in advance? IMHO pax have grown to expect, BECAUSE of the amazing reliability that airlines have achieved minimizing these factors, that they can select an exact flight a year in advance. But when the weather Gods play unnice, the expectation is that the airline pays for this?
Well, they don't have to offer the ticket A to B a year in advance, or at any time, but the airlines choose to.
I guess the short answer re the airline pays is that its always the airline's call as to how to delay and where and they would have factored such costs into the price of a ticket (they have a LOT of data), so yes, the passengers do ultimately pay.
I'll say the same as I did last time this sort of topic came up. If not all, then those airlines who care to be known as 'responsible' need to have contingency plans for all the likely diversions. For places they don't have a presence in (ie those they don't usually land into), they should have an 'at call' agent. So, when the advice comes, and except for a dire emergency landing it will nearly always be at least an hour in advance of touchdown, the pre-determined plan can be put into action, either by airline reps or the 'at call' agent. I dunno, but:
1. Contact local ground operations (this is beyond the aircraft obviously telling them 'we are inbound') - check the info on file about whether the airport have steps etc to take the plane; is the terminal available for use by xx_ pax?
2. If needs be, start booking hotels.
3. If needs be, put ground transport on stand-by or arrange, depending on situation.
4. Prepare info for pax to their mobile phones, or e-mails, whatever was given at time of booking - send basic info as soon as possible; more detailed later. Not all will get it - but its better than shouting at the airport.
and so on. Yes, this will cost more ... probably quite a bit, but how much does it cost in cash and reputation when things go pear-shaped after a diversion?
The 'problem' with Qantas I think is that they have such a strong brand and semi-captive audience that they can often afford to treat pax like mushrooms and just work things out as they go along. I'm sure they've done the sums.
I wonder why some airlines are pro-active in service recovery and compensation, whilst others do the bare minimum?