Appropriate compensation for flight delays?

[eastwest101]

Maybe but everybody just needs to toughen up a little. I cannot remember the last time QF did not misconnect me when flying LAX-SYD/MEL/BNE-PER. QF just put me on the next flight and tell me to go away, even when it is completely their fault. I think they would laugh if I tried to ask for compensation.

Yes - maybe sometimes people do need to toughen up a bit but unfortunately Airlines also cannot pick and choose which laws they will comply with and which ones they may choose not to obey. If businesses want to rely on laws to conduct their business then they should not be able to "opt out" of laws that may be inconvenient to them or cost them money, no matter how onerous or silly we may think the laws sometimes are. The EU compensation regeime is entirely relevant to the OPs case, unlike your experience on QF with missed connections originating in the USA and flying into Australia (assuming all on one PNR where Australian and US laws would be applicable).

 

[amaroo]

what does mechanical/safety mean? was 'safety' their words or yours?

As you would appreciate they didn't conduct an intensive engineering review in the lounge. In summary - part busted, not available in CNS.....this bird aren't flying.

 

[dajop]

Legislation notwithstanding, it doesn't seem that QR were unreasonable, they got you on next flight to SIN, and delay was only 5 hours on about 14-15 hours of travel, and some modest food vouchers were provided. Sometimes cough happens, despite beast endeavours, and we all prefer to be in a situation where airlines operate conservatively with respect to weather and aircraft faults.

From what I've read, the EU legislation was originally framed in response to certain be-harped airlines and their ilk, which provided nothing for severely delayed passengers, and would often even fly pax into nearby airports and expect them to fend for themselves on the ground in getting to destinations several hundred km away. Idea was to get the airlines to be fairer and more reasonable, but in enacting legislation its scope was widened and is very much a capture all, although reading on FT it seems many airlines do their utmost to deny claims.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Legislation notwithstanding, it doesn't seem that QR were unreasonable, they got you on next flight to SIN, and delay was only 5 hours on about 14-15 hours of travel, and some modest food vouchers were provided. Sometimes cough happens, despite beast endeavours, and we all prefer to be in a situation where airlines operate conservatively with respect to weather and aircraft faults.

From what I've read, the EU legislation was originally framed in response to certain be-harped airlines and their ilk, which provided nothing for severely delayed passengers, and would often even fly pax into nearby airports and expect them to fend for themselves on the ground in getting to destinations several hundred km away. Idea was to get the airlines to be fairer and more reasonable, but in enacting legislation its scope was widened and is very much a capture all, although reading on FT it seems many airlines do their utmost to deny claims.

that's all fair enough, but the issue is that the airline (and airline) has taken payment to transport you from A->B. It is implied that the airline (a) has the resources to do that and (b) will do so as safely as it can.

if matters happen which are inside the control of the airline, resulting in a delay, there is no real reason why airlines should be exempt from normal contract arrangements just like any other company.

somethings are completely outside an airline's control. In those cases, delays happen and pax should be expected to deal with them. But in cases where it is deemed within their control, no reason why an airline should take your money, but not operate the service as planned.

Mechanical faults happen... but if you only have one plane, and sell your services and that one plane, it is not the fault of the passenger if something goes wrong. The airline could fork out the money to send the passenger on another carrier. i had. mechanical fault with BA and they re accommodated me on TG without so much as a question. A friend had a mechanical on a QF service and instead of accommodating them on CX they were sent home via SYD on QF. Which one is better for the passenger?

 

[knasty]

Yes - maybe sometimes people do need to toughen up a bit but unfortunately Airlines also cannot pick and choose which laws they will comply with and which ones they may choose not to obey. If businesses want to rely on laws to conduct their business then they should not be able to "opt out" of laws that may be inconvenient to them or cost them money, no matter how onerous or silly we may think the laws sometimes are. The EU compensation regeime is entirely relevant to the OPs case, unlike your experience on QF with missed connections originating in the USA and flying into Australia (assuming all on one PNR where Australian and US laws would be applicable).

Just received an email saying BA has agreed ti pay my 300 Euro claim. They kept denying me personally but apparently have agreed to pay after I used one of the EU261 companies.