Volcano disrupts all flights to UK (April 2010)

[dk4]

Re: Volcano Travel Insurance

While the worst thing that Qantas has done to me this April has been an equipment change, which I really can’t complain about as it ended with me sitting in 1A on a 747, I was certainly impressed to receive an email from my annual travel policy insurer yesterday. (Especially had I been less fortunate, and received a more ashen flying outcome.)

As one of our policyholders who may be affected by disruption to flights caused by the volcanic ash cloud over Europe, we want to reassure you about the coverage of your Mondial Assistance travel insurance policy.

You may have purchased your travel insurance policy through one of our many partners in Australia and New Zealand—they include Allianz, 1300Insurance, Expedia, AEA, Budget Direct, COTA, Downunder, Malaysia Airlines, My Cover, National Australia Bank, National Seniors Association, National Seniors Travel, Over 50, Pin Point, Teachers Insurance Services and Zuji.

All our comprehensive travel insurance policies, purchased before 16 April, include cover for cancellation and accommodation expenses associated with delayed flights as a result of the ash cloud.

Currently you may be having problems in contacting us by telephone as we are experiencing very significant call volumes. We hope the following information will provide you with the detail and certainty you need to rest easy about your travel insurance policy. If after reading the following you are still unsure or concerned please call us on our 24 hour emergency assistance number +61 7 3305 7499 reverse charge from anywhere overseas or 1800 010 075 free call within Australia or 0800 778 103 free call within New Zealand. Or you can email us on - …

 

[Nigelinoz]

Qantas is getting a bagging from some passengers ,at least that is according to,you guessed it,News Ltd.
Cautious Qantas finally takes to the sky | News.com.au

HUNDREDS of Qantas passengers faced further delays this morning as the airline refused to fly due to reports of ash above London's Heathrow Airport. While the first Qantas flight QF32 bound for Sydney has just taken off after an 11 hour delay, passengers heading to Melbourne weren’t as lucky.
Qantas cancelled flight QF8230 on Wednesday (local time) from Heathrow to Melbourne due to its policy of not flying while there remains a “significant meteorological report” of ash on the flight path.
Passengers voiced their frustration as they watched other airlines taking off from Heathrow airport earlier today.

"Every other airline that has flown out of Heathrow today has done so without any problem whatsoever," Qantas passenger Justin Davis said.

"I've seen British Airways leaving, Finnair leaving, Nigeria (Airlines) leaving - you name it."

Interestingly an earlier version of the story,which seems to have disappeared had this:

Qantas has no balls and they need to get final approval from CASA to fly out of European air space,'' Mr Davis said.

"The CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) in Europe has let all the European airlines fly but Qantas can't make a f---ing decision.''

 

[Blackadder]

I can see why the pax were getting upset, what makes the safety standards of QF different from the likes of Singapore Airlines,Cathay Pacifc,British Airways etc.

 

[samh004]

While I wouldn’t want to force any pilot to fly through an ash cloud, or even be on a plane where there’s such a danger, if every other airline that took off today managed to without a problem, then somethings up. :-|

 

[ric_melb]

The difference was the threat of volcanic ash in the Qantas flypath. No doubt other flight paths were cleared. And I would prefer the standards or Qantas over those of Nigerian Airways.

 

[dajop]

While I wouldn’t want to force any pilot to fly through an ash cloud, or even be on a plane where there’s such a danger, if every other airline that took off today managed to without a problem, then somethings up. :-|

Is it not inconceivable that (further) delays could have been equipment related, and as such not attributable to the ash situation. But by all accounts the explanation given is that they were, although third parties not always that reliable. In any event, I think we all value QF's conservatism regarding safety.

 

[samh004]

The difference was the threat of volcanic ash in the Qantas flypath. No doubt other flight paths were cleared. And I would prefer the standards or Qantas over those of Nigerian Airways.

I’d think than QF would fly a similar route to SQ, but then I don’t know.

In any event, I think we all value QF's conservatism regarding safety.

That is true.

 

[Standby]

I’d think than QF would fly a similar route to SQ, but then I don’t know.



That is true.

Last nights news indicated the QF32 to SYD via SIN would depart but the MEL svc was delayed as it operated via HKG and its flight tracking was much closer the problem area than the SIN service...who knows I dont pay that much attention to the maps when flying

 

[Mal]

Both Ryanair and BMI are refusing to pay for hotels and associated expenses for stranded pax, due to them both claiming "extraordinary circumstances", even though the EU directive doesn't allow for an exemption.

Will be interesting to see if they get absolutely hammered by the authorities over this. If the EU directive directs them to pay, then they should... if they don't like it - get the law changed somehow, or stop flying.

 

[samh004]

Both Ryanair and BMI are refusing to pay for hotels and associated expenses for stranded pax, due to them both claiming "extraordinary circumstances", even though the EU directive doesn't allow for an exemption.

Will be interesting to see if they get absolutely hammered by the authorities over this. If the EU directive directs them to pay, then they should... if they don't like it - get the law changed somehow, or stop flying.

At least we might finally get rid of Ryanair.

 

[serfty]

Both Ryanair and BMI are refusing to pay for hotels and associated expenses for stranded pax, due to them both claiming "extraordinary circumstances", even though the EU directive doesn't allow for an exemption.

Will be interesting to see if they get absolutely hammered by the authorities over this. If the EU directive directs them to pay, then they should... if they don't like it - get the law changed somehow, or stop flying.

Here's an information page put out by the EU:

Air travel: volcanic ash cloud

But even in exceptional circumstances EU passenger rights continue to apply and air travellers should speak up to claim their rights."

With regard to passenger rights, the Vice President added:

"This is a situation which is causing immense difficulties for passengers travelling throughout Europe. It can be considered a very exceptional circumstance. Nevertheless, it is important to remind passengers and airlines that EU passenger rights do apply in this situation" :

• the right to receive information from airlines (e.g. on your rights, on the situation as it evolves, cancellations and length of delays)
• the right to care (refreshments, meals, accommodation as appropriate)
• the right to chose between reimbursement of fares or be re-routed to final destination

In an exceptional circumstance such as this, passengers are not however entitled to additional financial compensation that would be the case where delays or cancellations are the fault of the airline.

 

[mannej]

I do remember reading that a Thomas Cook 757 and a World Airways MD-11 had ash related problems so it hasn't been 100% smooth sailing since the airspace has been re-opened.

Flight aborted as pilot smells volcanic ash | News.com.au

If news.com.au did publish those comments from that irate passenger (IMHO) that is poor journalism as comments like that add no value to the article.

I do realise it becomes frustrating for passengers stuck, but I wouldn't want to be rushing home until the airspace has cleared up considering the potential that volcanic ash does have.

 

[anat0l]

Both Ryanair and BMI are refusing to pay for hotels and associated expenses for stranded pax, due to them both claiming "extraordinary circumstances", even though the EU directive doesn't allow for an exemption.

Will be interesting to see if they get absolutely hammered by the authorities over this. If the EU directive directs them to pay, then they should... if they don't like it - get the law changed somehow, or stop flying.

We've had this discussion in here (i.e. the one regarding any airline covered in the EU regs still have "right to care" obligations), rather interesting that both are refusing (rather more so on bmi than Ryanair).

Question is would the law proactively go after them, or only after a customer (or a handful etc.) bring forward a complaint? And who is going to go after them (which jurisdiction)? And if they do get "convicted" of neglecting their responsibilities under "right to care", what is the punishment and will it be used to recompense the affected pax (and to what magnitude/manner)?

Something tells me whoever prosecutes these airlines (if it gets to that point) won't have a lot of teeth to do a good job for the good of the pax (it'll be more a prosecution for the pure reason of breaking a convention/law rather than for the justice of those that were affected). Also, which court would handle the case because all courts (except for the highest ones, usually) have limits regarding financial penalties.

Seems that if pax have been genuinely negatively affected by these airlines, then I don't see that they will be satisfactorily recompensed for their inconvenience.

 

[NM]

Keep in mind that a QF flight originating in SYD or MEL heading to LHR or FRA is going to take something like 12 hours more than a SQ flight originating in SIN. QF does not want to be in the situation where they depart SYD and get as far as SIN only to find the volcano has blown its top again or the winds have changed and airspace is again closed. If that happened, they would then have 400+ passengers in SIN where there are no hotel rooms available for them to accommodate those passengers while the dust clears.

I expect Qantas is only going to send aircraft out from Australia with passengers destined for Europe when they have reasonable expectation that the conditions will be favourable all the way to Europe and they won't end up with plane loads of passengers at intermediate ports and no way to accommodate them.

 

[Mal]

Question is would the law proactively go after them, or only after a customer (or a handful etc.) bring forward a complaint? And who is going to go after them (which jurisdiction)? And if they do get "convicted" of neglecting their responsibilities under "right to care", what is the punishment and will it be used to recompense the affected pax (and to what magnitude/manner)?

Each EU member has their own complaints/enforcement body. For Airlines in the UK, it's the Civil Aviation Authority, and I believe complaints can be pushed up through the "Air Transport Users Group".

Seeing there's a Government election in ~2 weeks, this isn't the time for anyone to be frustrating voters. I expect that there will be some interesting missives thrown at BMI and Ryanair in the next little while.

I don't know what the legal consequences are, but at the least they would be up for paying the hotels etc. Hence why there's plenty of information at the moment advising people to "hold receipts" etc.

BTW, this is typical behaviour from Ryanair - and I believe they've been caught out on this before.

 

[anat0l]

Seeing there's an Government election in ~2 weeks, this isn't the time for anyone to be frustrating voters. I expect that there will be some interesting missives thrown at BMI and Ryanair in the next little while.

Thought that as much. So again the pax (if they are genuinely affected) are going to lose out, unless they can complain and bring action against them in another jurisdiction.

I don't know what the legal consequences are, but at the least they would be up for paying the hotels etc. Hence why there's plenty of information at the moment advising people to "hold receipts" etc.

For the pax affected, this is then what they should have got (perhaps more inferior), just a bit (too) late. Nothing else - rather cold comfort. Any fine issued further than that - where does that money go?

BTW, this is atypical behaviour from Ryanair - and I believe they've been caught out on this before.

Atypical - as in not typical - so you mean Ryanair normally would fulfil their obligations? Just asking for clarification, as you're not coming in too clear there.

I thought you would mean to say that it would be typical for Ryanair to exhibit this sort of behaviour, i.e. being the reluctant ones to fulfil their EU regs obligations (and in a case like this, even more so).


I guess O'Leary would be using his pulling power as much as possible to play off the authorities. After all, they just can't shut down Ryanair tomorrow, can they? (The authorities would have to accept the responsibility for all pax who had tickets with the airline - that's not a small number of pax at all)

 

[Mal]

Thought that as much. So again the pax (if they are genuinely affected) are going to lose out, unless they can complain and bring action against them in another jurisdiction.

First step is for the affected passengers to actually request payment from the Airline, wait for the stonewalling, then contact ATUG for assistance.

There is probably small claims type court ability as well, but again wouldn't pay out anything more than actual expenses.

I don't know if the UK Govt can fine BMI (in particular as they are based in UK), or what they can do with Ryanair (based in IE). Perhaps the Irish Aviation authority needs to bring action there.

I guess O'Leary would be using his pulling power as much as possible to play off the authorities. After all, they just can't shut down Ryanair tomorrow, can they? (The authorities would have to accept the responsibility for all pax who had tickets with the airline - that's not a small number of pax at all)

A lot of the public hearing statements like "We aren't going to pay" won't actually bother lodging a claim. It's quite possible that BMI/Ryanair and another couple of small carriers who are excluding their responsibilities now will actually pay up when the time comes. (doubtful for Ryanair, but stranger things have happened...)

I've also changed atypical to typical... so it should make more sense now.

 

[sjp]

Hi all - first time / long time.

I'm currently in the UK. Flew up QF1 on April 1 and was meant to fly back QF2 on April 16. After the volcano incident occurred I was pushed to QF32 on April 21, and with the extended flight blackout I was then pushed to April 26 with QF30 LHR -> HKG then QF88 HKG -> SYD [1]. I then called up yesterday seeing if I could get an earlier flight; I was refused a BA LHR -> FRA + QF FRA -> SYD [1] itinerary for April 23rd by one of the superiors of the booking rep I was talking to apparently because of cost. I was then able to secure QF2 on April 24, and left it at that. This morning my local internal travel rep called me saying that they were able to secure me a ticket on BA9 tonight (April 22), and was given about 30 seconds to decide. I decided to take it, although I've been using my time wisely here and don't like changing my plans at the last minute.

I'm a pretty understanding guy, so I don't want to bag out the airlines here. Qantas were a little disorganised, and given that I'm flying Business (albeit Class D) for a large MNC I thought I would have been given somewhat better treatment (although I accept that this situation is chaos for all airlines). It took my local travel rep to pull the strings to get Qantas to change their tune.

[1] These flights would have given me 280 status credits rather than 240. I need 260 for WP. I'll be doing a SYD -> MEL trip in the next few weeks to secure that.

 

[sjp]

I was in the UK last week with 48 other people for a work offsite - only about 15 of those were locals. It's made for some interesting stories in terms of how people got home.

On Friday (after the offsite was over) all of the German contingent managed somehow to get a coach and took it by ferry to Calais and then had a fun drunken night back to Frankfurt.

On Monday two people from Hong Kong set off by train to Rome to catch a flight there - USD$6000 each for Economy tickets ($10000 for Business!). They arrived in HK this morning.

Two thirds of the US group decided to book a coach and left London on Tuesday to Madrid. They made it there yesterday and will be catching flights today.

The US guys that remained ended up getting a BA flight yesterday (a group of MNC's "chartered" a BA plane from LHR -> JFK), and made it back before the group above. Ironic, but the first group weren't trying to second guess how the week would play out (plus the bus ride would have been fun).

Singapore guys had flights all over the place but managed to get 3 separate flights for the 3 of them today.

coughie prize to one US guy who decided to on Saturday take a train to Northern England, then a ferry to Dublin, and then got stuck here. Last I heard he was booked on a boat to Madrid. Hopefully he got himself either a DUB -> JFK flight or at least a flight back to London.

But the best one is another US guy...

On Sunday drove to Dover, took the ferry to Calais, drove to Madrid, flew to Bogota, then to New York. He was the first to make it home - 05:30AM Tuesday NYC time. That deserved a prize.

 

[QF WP]

The last guy's story is a very similar story to two Flyertalker's on the Qantas Forum...

My brother's Conference finished in Dublin on Friday, 16th and luckily his plans (with his GF) was to drive around Ireland for 2 weeks, with Ei flight DUB/LHR booked on 28th, then Etihad LHR/AUH/BNE on 5th May.

However, a lot of the other Conference delegates (who were coming straigt back) weren't so lucky. Some got on ferries but a lot had to modify their post-Conference plans. Quite a few more are touring Ireland than originally had planned :shock: and have had to cancel a lot of client appointments back here.

At least the Conference organisers were stuck with them and the whole group have travel insurance, so there will be some interesting stories I'll hear when they return.