Best travel insurance against cancellation of trip due to airline delay?

[gypsyinabigtown]

G'day all,

I've a big 2-week scuba diving boat trip coming up in Indonesia over xmas. I'm flying from Sydney to Jakarta via QF, and then a 2-leg flight via a domestic carrier to Sorong in West Papua. I am landing about 10 hours before the trip starts.

I have already paid ~$5,000 for this dive trip, and it's non-refundable. My biggest worry is that something will happen during the flights and I will miss the dive boat departure and miss out on the whole trip. Is there any insurance against missing a pre-booked trip due to airline delays/cancellation/re-scheduling?

Almost all travel insurance policies I've read online (virgin money, allianz, qbe, travelinsurancedirect, Zuji) say in their fineprint that they will not pay anything in case of an airline cancellation/delay/rescheduling.

I've looked up the former posts on this and most of them seemed to agree on it as well. Given they were a few years old, I thought I would ping the board again to see if there's any policy I've missed that would provide such cover.

Thanks all!

 

[Cynicor]

have a look at the columbus pds. It seems to cover missed connections explicitly, but not sure of the exclusions re:"carrier at fault".

I didn't think TID excluded airline caused delays either. Have you asked them for the exact clause?

 

[gypsyinabigtown]

have a look at the columbus pds. It seems to cover missed connections explicitly, but not sure of the exclusions re:"carrier at fault".

I didn't think TID excluded airline caused delays either. Have you asked them for the exact clause?

Thanks for the tip on Columbus. Their pds seems to allow for "trip abandonment" if there is a 12-hour delay in the itinerary. It is not ideal (even if there's a substantial 8-hour delay, which would likely make me miss the boat, all they pay for is still ~$300), but closer to what I would like.

I've checked the TID PDS as well. They specifically exclude any cover for:

"Delays, rescheduling or cancellation of scheduled transport services caused by the carrier or related to the carrier, including maintenance, repairs, rescheduling, service faults or industrial activity other than a strike or corporate takeover."

Slightly OT but, what particularly miffed me about TID was that they actually have a page purportedly designed to tell the customers "what does all this really mean?".
The page describes ludicrous examples of policy exclusions, such as "riding a Harley overseas when you are drunk, high and don't have a helmet" , "winged-suit base jumping" or "travelling to Somalia against government advice".

A reasonable person may think: "Okay, fair point. The policy doesn't cover you if you behave recklessly or irresponsibly."
Which might lead them to think that the policy would cover them when they have incurred damages outside their control. Yet nowhere in the page is it mentioned that cancellation costs related to delays, reschedulings or cancellations of airlines or other carriers are not covered at all.
I don't disagree that people should read the fine print, but if a company designs a webpage, purportedly trying to tell its customers "what all this really means",
and yet does not mention at all one of the most critical exclusions in the fineprint, I find it highly misleading, almost deceptive. Anyway, I digress

Thanks again for the suggestion!

 

[Moopere]

I didn't think TID excluded airline caused delays either. Have you asked them for the exact clause?

I have a TID policy and a similar query has come up in recent days on the forums (who pays for hotel/food/etc with carrier based delay: http://www.australianfrequentflyer....mbursement-for-expenses-45436.html#post721064 ).

Having read the PDS from TID it looks to me like its covered, yet, the thread here at AFF is saying that Lloyds, the underwriter, is denying the claim. I have a potential tricky situation myself with a close timed transit BKK-HKT-PER and any funny business in getting to HKT will cause me to miss my PER flight as as they are all separately ticketed I was going to rely upon TID in case the worst happened.

This new query is a reminder to me to call TID and get a clarification. Will report back when I get something useful.

 

[gypsyinabigtown]

I have a TID policy and a similar query has come up in recent days on the forums (who pays for hotel/food/etc with carrier based delay: ).

Having read the PDS from TID it looks to me like its covered, yet, the thread here at AFF is saying that Lloyds, the underwriter, is denying the claim. I have a potential tricky situation myself with a close timed transit BKK-HKT-PER and any funny business in getting to HKT will cause me to miss my PER flight as as they are all separately ticketed I was going to rely upon TID in case the worst happened.

This new query is a reminder to me to call TID and get a clarification. Will report back when I get something useful.

Hello and thanks a lot for the perspective and looking forward to hearing your response when you've received a clarification from TID.
I think my situation is a bit different, in that I am not necessarily after reimbursing the cost of a 5$ noodle, $50 hotel room I will have to buy if my flight in Indonesia is delayed, but the cost of a non-refundable $5000 dive trip which I would miss if my flight is (substantially) delayed. I think the first one is generally covered, but the second one I'm having huge trouble to find.

Thanks again!

 

[Moopere]

I think my situation is a bit different, in that I am not necessarily after reimbursing the cost of a 5$ noodle, $50 hotel room I will have to buy if my flight in Indonesia is delayed, but the cost of a non-refundable $5000 dive trip which I would miss if my flight is (substantially) delayed. I think the first one is generally covered, but the second one I'm having huge trouble to find.
!

*nod*, Yep, understand. I think its in the same section in the PDS. Am snooping through it now.

 

[Moopere]

Hmm. I reckon its going to be this section for TID:

Section 2: Cancellation costs
1. We will pay the value of the unused
arrangements, less any refunds due to
you, if you have to cancel any pre-paid
transport or accommodation arrangements
due to any unforeseen or unforeseeable
circumstances outside of your control.
2. We will pay the reasonable cost of
rearranging your trip prior to you travelling
because something unforeseen and outside
of your control occurs, provided that this
cost is not greater than the cancellation
fees or lost deposits which would have
been incurred had the trip been cancelled.
3. We will pay the cancellation cost of tuition
or course fees up to $2,000 if the sole
purpose of your trip is to attend that
course and that course is cancelled due to
circumstances outside of your control.
4. We will pay the travel agent’s cancellation
fees up to 10% of the amount paid to the
travel agent or $1,500 for a single policy or
$3,000 for a family policy, whichever is the
lesser, when full monies have been paid or
the maximum amount of the deposit has
been paid at the time of cancellation. We
will not pay any travel agent’s cancellation
fees above the level of commission and/or
service fees normally earned by the agent
had the trip not been cancelled.
09
3.0 What's Covered and What's Not
Travel
Insurance
Direct
5. We will pay you for loss of frequent
flyer or similar air travel points you used
to purchase an airline ticket following
cancellation of your airline ticket and
you cannot recover the lost points from
any other source. The cancellation must
be due to unforeseen or unforeseeable
circumstances outside of your control.
We calculate the amount we pay you by
multiplying:
a) the cost of an equivalent class airline
ticket based on the quoted retail price at
the time the ticket was issued, less your
financial contribution;
b) by the total value of points lost divided by
the total value of points used to obtain the
ticket.
The maximum amount we will pay for all claims
combined under this section is shown under
Policy Benefits (page 06) for the plan you
have selected.
For what we will not pay in this section, please
refer to Exclusions to Sections 1-23 (page
16) and General Exclusions: applicable to all
sections (page 22).

Specifically Section 2.1

I'd want to keep some mightily good records of the turn of events though to support the case and wherever possible get something written and signed from the various services that might have let you down and ultimately caused the delay / cancellation.

This particular section also implies that when the unforeseen even happens you call the tour operator and cancel ... and that this would be acceptable to TID.

I'd definitely ring any potential insurer for clarification of that one and have them email you directly after the conversation with a record of what was said.

 

[gypsyinabigtown]

Hmm. I reckon its going to be this section for TID:



Specifically Section 2.1

I'd want to keep some mightily good records of the turn of events though to support the case and wherever possible get something written and signed from the various services that might have let you down and ultimately caused the delay / cancellation.

This particular section also implies that when the unforeseen even happens you call the tour operator and cancel ... and that this would be acceptable to TID.

I'd definitely ring any potential insurer for clarification of that one and have them email you directly after the conversation with a record of what was said.

Thanks heaps for snooping this out. I've read the section. Section 2.1 looks promising, but then they say "For what we will not pay in this section, please refer to Exclusions to Sections 1-23 (page 16) and General Exclusions: applicable to all sections (page 22)."
and then in the Exclusions to Sections 1-23 they specifically exclude ""Delays, rescheduling or cancellation of scheduled transport services caused by the carrier or related to the carrier, including maintenance, repairs, rescheduling, service faults or industrial activity other than a strike or corporate takeover."

Thanks heaps again for the reference. I'll give them a ring tomorrow to find out what this is all about and will note here.

 

[Moopere]

Thanks heaps for snooping this out. I've read the section. Section 2.1 looks promising, but then they say "For what we will not pay in this section, please refer to Exclusions to Sections 1-23 (page 16) and General Exclusions: applicable to all sections (page 22)."
and then in the Exclusions to Sections 1-23 they specifically exclude ""Delays, rescheduling or cancellation of scheduled transport services caused by the carrier or related to the carrier, including maintenance, repairs, rescheduling, service faults or industrial activity other than a strike or corporate takeover."

Thanks heaps again for the reference. I'll give them a ring tomorrow to find out what this is all about and will note here.

Mm, yes. Its a short but rather nasty exclusion. Given that travel insurance is going to be used by "travellers" then the likelihood of something going boing during a trip that involves some sort of carrier has got to be fairly high.


If something bad did happen carrier wise, perhaps section 9 could rescue the situation:

Section 9: Special events
You only have this cover if you choose the
International or Annual Multi Trip plan.
If your trip is interrupted by any unforeseeable
cause outside of your control and you are
unable to arrive at your destination by the
time originally scheduled – for the purpose
of attending a prearranged wedding, funeral,
conference or sporting event which cannot be
delayed as a consequence of your late arrival
– we will reimburse you for the reasonable
additional cost of using alternative public
transport to arrive at the destination on time.

Provided there was enough time left to effect the recovery (ie, book another flight). "Special Events" are excluded from the blanket exclusion

 

[trooper]

I think the problem is that the cover many of us would LIKE to have is for risks so bad that no sane insurer would cover them (unless charging astronomical premiums of course)

Should we really expect to be able to get (cheap) cover for - in particular - the possible knock-on effects of delays on separate bookings??

Does anyone think it reasonable that one could book an LCC with a terrible rep for on time performance.."connecting" right on published MCT with an expensive legacy flight.. and expect cover when it goes pear shaped?

General agreement here I imagine that exclusions regarding edge sports and so on are "reasonable".. or as gypsyinabigtown put it:

"The policy doesn't cover you if you behave recklessly or irresponsibly"

AT WHAT POINT however is our booking behaviour "reckless and irresponsible"?

Sure.. I make separate bookings.. the cost savings are (sometimes) amazing.. BUT.. I build in an overnight (normally) between these separate bookings... and effectively underwrite the risk myself. I haven't lost out yet... but if I ever do then "so be it"..

With a 10 hour cushion I suspect the OP is relatively safe... but with $5k at stake... a day earlier wasn't possible?? It would have been for ME...

 

[Moopere]

Should we really expect to be able to get (cheap) cover for - in particular - the possible knock-on effects of delays on separate bookings??

Sure. In my case the intra Asia flights are so ridiculously cheap that I am happy to wear the risk of weirdness and just buy new tickets if it comes to that.

Nevertheless, a topic worth discussion I think, even if it does no more than heighten awareness.

Sure.. I make separate bookings.. the cost savings are (sometimes) amazing.. BUT.. I build in an overnight (normally) between these separate bookings... and effectively underwrite the risk myself. I haven't lost out yet... but if I ever do then "so be it"..

With a 10 hour cushion I suspect the OP is relatively safe... but with $5k at stake... a day earlier wasn't possible?? It would have been for ME...

I've often thought about this too. Overnighters, probably even at the airport hotels that are usually available. But it can do wild things to your budget and also schedule unless you've got the luxury of a long time away.

Some insurers do cover onwards flights, it must be considered a measurable risk. I'll have a look at Columbus by way of comparison.

I don't disagree with your statements relating to reasonableness, however, if a better product is out there ... well ... thats the beauty of competition, it often raises the bar.

 

[trooper]

That's true.... and I'd jump on a product that would cover me for "consequential" problems of that nature!

I fear I shall remain unsatisfied there however...

 

[gypsyinabigtown]

trooper - I agree, I'd jump on a product like that as well.
Alas, it remains elusive.

I have just called TID to confirm: If the delay is caused by the carrier (even if it is not caused by me or is in my control) I will get zilch/nada/zero compensation (except a pack of instant noodles while I wait for my flight back I suppose!).

Frustration abounds...

 

[trooper]

Weeelll... I can actually sympathise with the insurers on things like this....

From discussions here and on FT over the years it is clear that many folks are not averse to booking what I would call "bloody risky" constructions of separate tickets... often seeming to require perfect on-time performance, uncrowded airports etc to achieve...

Puts me in mind of those domino stunts.... only takes the first one to fall.....

It must be remembered that insurance is meant to be for unexpected events. The levels of risk some folks seem happy with -very short connections on wildly separate tickets (LCC-Legacy or vv, OW to *A etc)- are - arguably I feel - tending towards problems pretty much being expected!

I live in Canberra... and after the big fires some years ago stories abounded of folks in (immediately threatened) suburbs calling insurance companies to arrange Bushfire coverage.... presumably just prior to evacuating the area!

If true (doubtful I imagine) one can imagine the Insurers response... and I would suggest SOME of the expectations for cover I've seen on these boards over the years come pretty close to that!:shock::mrgreen:

 

[gypsyinabigtown]

Hmmm... I see your point and I agree it takes a bit of responsibility for those who book travel as well, but they could remedy that by putting a minimum delay required, e.g. "we will only pay claims if there is more than a 4 hours delay". This would eliminate those who deliberately construct risky itineraries with tight connections and require perfect on-time performance - I'd doubt any itinerary with a 6 hours contingency could easily be construed reckless, or a delay of >4 hours could be construed as perfect on-time performance

The problem is that almost all travel insurance policies flat out reject paying out for cancellation losses due to any carrier delays/rescheduling/cancellations, regardless of its duration. I do see a problem with this. If they can discriminate the risk of a house in the bush-fire zone in ACT, they should be able to discriminate the risk of a risky itinerary vs. one with contingency built-in as well.

BTW, I managed to find out that Simply Travel Insurance Pty Ltd. does pay out for cancellation losses due to carrier delays/rescheduling/cancellations (except losses from the airfare itself). So I finally managed to get myself covered. Now it's time to cross fingers and hope that I'll never have to use it!

 

[Cynicor]

When I mentioned Columbus I was actually referring to their missed connection clauses, rather than cancellation. I'll have a better read but I thought it covered the connections stuff above.

 

[gypsyinabigtown]

Thanks cynicor. I think their "missed departure/connection" clause (Section 11 in their PDS) only covers "necessary and reasonable additional travel and accommodation expenses".
My read of that was that:
* If I am in Jakarta and my flight out to Sorong (where my dive trip begins) is delayed by 8 hours (unreasonable, unexpected and completely outside my control), which would make me miss the boat departure, and there are no other tickets/flights to Sorong available
* Then they can pay for my flight back to Sydney and any nights I need to spend for the hotel in Jakarta, but not the non-refundable pre-paid cost of the dive trip I purchase.

They have a trip abandonment clause as well (Section 10), but it requires a minimum of 12-hours delay.

To be fair, I haven't given them a call so I may have misinterpreted as well.

 

[RB]

Hmmm... I see your point and I agree it takes a bit of responsibility for those who book travel as well, but they could remedy that by putting a minimum delay required, e.g. "we will only pay claims if there is more than a 4 hours delay". This would eliminate those who deliberately construct risky itineraries with tight connections and require perfect on-time performance - I'd doubt any itinerary with a 6 hours contingency could easily be construed reckless, or a delay of >4 hours could be construed as perfect on-time performance

The problem is that almost all travel insurance policies flat out reject paying out for cancellation losses due to any carrier delays/rescheduling/cancellations, regardless of its duration. I do see a problem with this. If they can discriminate the risk of a house in the bush-fire zone in ACT, they should be able to discriminate the risk of a risky itinerary vs. one with contingency built-in as well.

BTW, I managed to find out that Simply Travel Insurance Pty Ltd. does pay out for cancellation losses due to carrier delays/rescheduling/cancellations (except losses from the airfare itself). So I finally managed to get myself covered. Now it's time to cross fingers and hope that I'll never have to use it!

I was always told the underlying idea of insurance is to share the risk- a pool of premiums to pay out claims. I believe there are very few years/companies that result in underwriting profits (ie the general insurance companies rely on investing the premium pool to turn a profit). As a general statement, times of low interest rates will quite often coincide with rising premiums. As alluded to by Trooper there have been times when Aust general insurance companies have imposed stops on new business acceptance in particular postcodes (ie bushfires already in the area) to stop people only taking out cover when they see a "definite risk"-this also helps protect the interests of policyholders who already hold cover, not just the insurance companies
I think the amount of discussion on this thread & other insurance matters on this site indicate that it would in fact be very difficult for insurance companies to reliably underwrite a risky itinerary V one with contingency built in-How many pages of plain English terms & conditions would be acceptable to consumers?
Insurance companies are also up against attitudes such as the following recently expressed on another thread "I just don't sweat it - if you work your insurance claims right you can usually upgrade post theft."

 

[trooper]

Well said... and I see I wasn't the only one to...Ahem... Look askance..at that upgrade comment...