Denied boarding and Premium Economy down grading – compensation if flying to EU

[JohnK]

I cannot understand how some people are siding with the airline(s) in this matter. A person has paid for a service and clearly did not receive this service so I believe they are entitled to the maximum compansation possible, even more.

The airline cancelling the return trip is also totally wrong?

Why are people constantly quoting rules and regulations that are there to favour the airlines and gloating about it at the same time? I sincerely hope the same happens to them next time so they can understand what it is like to be shafted by an airline.

I guess if someone booked a $10,000 First class return airfare UK-Australia and due to overbooking put on premium economy LHR-SIN with another carrier and then Jetstar economy SIN-SYD then this would be acceptable and only entitled to 300 Euros compensation? Absolute joke. The airline should offer a full refund and then another free return ticket to the destination to be used anytime in the next 10 years so they can learn not to treat people like rubbish....

 

[anat0l]

I cannot understand how some people are siding with the airline(s) in this matter. A person has paid for a service and clearly did not receive this service so I believe they are entitled to the maximum compansation possible, even more.

The airline cancelling the return trip is also totally wrong?

Why are people constantly quoting rules and regulations that are there to favour the airlines and gloating about it at the same time? I sincerely hope the same happens to them next time so they can understand what it is like to be shafted by an airline.

I guess if someone booked a $10,000 First class return airfare UK-Australia and due to overbooking put on premium economy LHR-SIN with another carrier and then Jetstar economy SIN-SYD then this would be acceptable and only entitled to 300 Euros compensation? Absolute joke. The airline should offer a full refund and then another free return ticket to the destination to be used anytime in the next 10 years so they can learn not to treat people like rubbish....

This seems awfully left field.

"Siding with the airlines?" If we were siding with the airlines then the OP will be told to expect nothing.

We've moved past the stage where we were trying to establish - under the relevant regs (in this case the EU one) - how much the OP was entitled to. It hasn't been paid and there is an outstanding dispute. Now the OP is threatening to bring the matter to court, but it will be contested in a UK jurisdiction if it does.

Admittedly, if the matter does go to court, it is rather unfair that the OP will have to go to the UK to fight it there, requiring additional costs that will be extremely difficult to claim back in legal proceedings (that is a fault of the law).

Not sure about people gloating on this thread either. For one, we also didn't have much idea who was the respondent in the thread until the OP posted some of the letters he received from the airline (in this case, VS). We haven't yet fully established whether VS is just too damn slow, is disputing the OP, or both. For the OP's sake, I hope it is only the first one (i.e. no need to fight this).

Moreover, your example - albeit hypothetical - is quite spurious as well as ignoring the other claimables underneath the relevant regulations which would be much more than a mere EUR 300. Admittedly, EU Regulation 261/2004 is one of the most generous, unique and customer-centric policies that enforce accountability upon airlines for irregular operations and ticketing. This thread has more become whether VS is going to properly uphold its obligations under the regulation; we haven't confirmed yet whether VS is actually reneging on it.

 

[medhead]

We've moved past the stage where we were trying to establish - under the relevant regs (in this case the EU one) - how much the OP was entitled to. It hasn't been paid and there is an outstanding dispute. Now the OP is threatening to bring the matter to court, but it will be contested in a UK jurisdiction if it does.

Just realised the UK court is a bit strange. Isn't there an EU regulator of this rule that should help with these desputes.

See here the links in this post

 

[Dave Noble]

Just realised the UK court is a bit strange. Isn't there an EU regulator of this rule that should help with these desputes.

See here the links in this post

What is stange about the UK Courts? The Small Claims track of the County Courts system is one of the most user friendly courts going.

Whether he would win would be dependant on the validity of the claim and the airline's defence

Dave

 

[oz_mark]

Why are people constantly quoting rules and regulations that are there to favour the airlines and gloating about it at the same time? I sincerely hope the same happens to them next time so they can understand what it is like to be shafted by an airline.

i'm not sure in this case, I am seeing too much siding with the airline. There are arguments both ways as to whether the the OP is entitled to compensation for the whole journey, or just for the leg downgraded. Even the EU documents on the interpretation has an each way bet:

Question 27: Where an air journey contains several legs, which part is to be ​

reimbursed in case of downgrading? 28​

If an air carrier or tour operator places a passenger in a class lower than that for which​

reservations were confirmed, it shall reimburse 30%, 50% or 75%, as applicable, of the published fare in the class reserved, for that flight sector.29​

​

​

and​

29​

​

​

NEB are of the opinion that reimbursement will be made in relation to the ticket, not just the flight sector,which the passenger was travelling on when the downgrade occurred.​

VS seem to be of the former opinion, and the OP of the latter.​

​

​

​

​

 

[straitman]

I cannot understand how some people are siding with the airline(s) in this matter. A person has paid for a service and clearly did not receive this service so I believe they are entitled to the maximum compansation possible, even more.

The airline cancelling the return trip is also totally wrong?

Why are people constantly quoting rules and regulations that are there to favour the airlines and gloating about it at the same time? I sincerely hope the same happens to them next time so they can understand what it is like to be shafted by an airline.

This seems awfully left field.

"Siding with the airlines?" If we were siding with the airlines then the OP will be told to expect nothing.

We've moved past the stage where we were trying to establish - under the relevant regs (in this case the EU one) - how much the OP was entitled to. It hasn't been paid and there is an outstanding dispute. Now the OP is threatening to bring the matter to court, but it will be contested in a UK jurisdiction if it does.

Admittedly, if the matter does go to court, it is rather unfair that the OP will have to go to the UK to fight it there, requiring additional costs that will be extremely difficult to claim back in legal proceedings (that is a fault of the law).

anat0l,

Put simply, a service has been paid for and not delivered and the OP is looking to follow up on this. As is often the case here there are one or two on the thread that are only looking at the negatives sides to all this.

As usual the law is seemingly open to interpretation and the OP believes he has a case and will, if necessary follow up in the courts. He states that he has experience in the UK court system so that will no doubt help him along.

Admittedly JohnK's example is a bit extreme but it does serve the purpose of illustrating the extreme of the situation. The example would be fascicle but then again so is the situation in which the OP finds himself.

 

[Dave Noble]

Admittedly JohnK's example is a bit extreme but it does serve the purpose of illustrating the extreme of the situation. The example would be fascicle but then again so is the situation in which the OP finds himself.

It doesn't show anything sensible. VS have given a refund which they claim to be correct though the OP however claims is not. In the example of a downgrade from 1st, they would have refunded the fare differece ( as they did for OP)

Whether the OP does deserve more is not an open n shut issue since there are numerous get outs in the European legislation. It is quite appropriate , if believing it ro be wrong, to take it to court ( which in UK is so easy that even a muppet could do it - no legal knowledge needed ) . The key problem I see is that given the wordings of the legislation, unless he attends in person to present a case and counter any arguments given by the airline, that he is unlikely to win and would just be out of pocket by the costs of raising the claim and the costs of the hearing' .

if living in the UK could well be worth pursuing, but if living overseas I wouldnt try it; there are some companies that will take claims for breach of EU regs and then pursue it and take a slice of the winnings if it wins which I would be more inclined to go to

Dave

 

[Julian P]

Another response from the AUC Civil Aviation Authority does not help much - it is very odd that the UK body in charge of enforcing a law against airlines leaves it up to the airlines themselves to interpet the law:

29 January 2010

Dear Mr Peterson

RE: Virgin Atlantic

Thank you for your e-mail of 04 January.

I am attaching a copy of our information sheet on downgrading. As you will see under Regulation EC261/2004 when a passenger is downgraded they are entitled to reimbursement in relation to the length of your journey, in your case 75% of the price of the ticket. Generally airlines take the view that this applies to the affected sector only.

I note you have sent an e-mail to Virgin but have yet to receive a reply, I have therefore sent a copy of your e-mail to Virgin to ask them to respond to you directly. From our experience airlines can take 6-8 weeks to reply, but if when you receive a reply you would like further advice please feel free to contact us again.

Nick Worrell
Consumer Affairs Officer

PDF advice:

Downgrading​

This page provides information for passengers who have been downgraded.

Under EU law, if you have been downgraded to a class lower than that for which you paid on a flight from an EU airport or on an EU carrier flying from an airport outside the EU to an EU airport then you are entitled to:
​

Length of journey Reimbursement​

up to 1500km 30% of the price of ticket
1500-3500km 50% of price of ticket​

more than 3500km 75% of price of ticket

On most other flights, it depends on the airline. Because of the flexibility of airline ticket prices, what you get back can sometimes be a lottery. Some carriers will refund the difference between the fare you paid and the current highest fare in the class you were downgraded to, for the sector you were downgraded on (this might mean you may not get as much money back as you might have hoped). Some will refund the difference between the fare you paid and what they estimate was the fare (in the class you were downgraded to, and for the sector you were downgraded on) on the day that you purchased your ticket. Others offer somewhere in between.​

 

[medhead]

What is stange about the UK Courts? The Small Claims track of the County Courts system is one of the most user friendly courts going.

Whether he would win would be dependant on the validity of the claim and the airline's defence

Dave

Strange UK courts! Come on!
Well, I did leave a bit out of that sentence that makes it sound like I'm saying UK courts are strange. But what I meant was it is strange to go to a UK court when there is a whole EU authority (or something like that) set up to enforce these rules.

 

[medhead]

Another response from the AUC Civil Aviation Authority does not help much - it is very odd that the UK body in charge of enforcing a law against airlines leaves it up to the airlines themselves to interpet the law:

That's not odd at all. That is how most if not all law works. An Act is past in parliament, it is then up to those people who are effected to interpret the law and act accordingly to satisfy the requirements according to their interpretation. It is only when a dispute arises and court action takes place that we get a legal interpretation.

In this case also the UK authority may be responsible for the legislation but they are not enforcing the rules that you are using. These rules set out compensation that is due in certain circumstances, it is a matter between you and the airline. There is nothing for the authority to enforce, what happens if the authority "raided" the airline over your case. The airline is going to say that they paid you compensation in accordance with the rules. Basically that is the end of their involvement, as far as they can tell the airline has follwed the rules. There is probably no power for the authority to make them prove this is the case. That is up to you to then take them to court and show that they haven't followed the rules - or whatever variations are allowed as others more familiar with this process have outlined.

 

[Julian P]

It is odd and it is very weak of them not to have a position - and it does not seem to accord with the law:

The EU regulation states:

"Infringements​

1. Each Member State shall designate a body responsible for the enforcement of this Regulation as regards flights from airports situated on its territory and flights from a third country to such airports. Where appropriate, this body shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the rights of passengers are respected. The Member States shall inform the Commission of the body that has been designated in accordance with this paragraph.
​

2. Without prejudice to Article 12, each passenger may complain to any body designated under paragraph 1, or to any other competent body designated by a Member State, about an alleged infringement of this Regulation at any airport situated on the territory of a Member State or concerning any flight from a third country to an airport situated on that territory.

3. The sanctions laid down by Member States for infringements of this Regulation shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive."

By not having a position on what the law means, the AUC cannot enforce the above effectively and becomes a poodle of the airlines against which it is supposed to take "effective, proportionate and dissuasive" sanctions.

It is not effective or dissuasive for them to leave interpretation to the airlines like Virgin Atlantic who, in this case, have failed to give proper service or state their position.​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

[medhead]

It is odd and it is very weak of them not to have a position - and it does not seem to accord with the law:

The EU regulation states:

"Infringements​

1. Each Member State shall designate a body responsible for the enforcement of this Regulation as regards flights from airports situated on its territory and flights from a third country to such airports. Where appropriate, this body shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the rights of passengers are respected. The Member States shall inform the Commission of the body that has been designated in accordance with this paragraph.
​

2. Without prejudice to Article 12, each passenger may complain to any body designated under paragraph 1, or to any other competent body designated by a Member State, about an alleged infringement of this Regulation at any airport situated on the territory of a Member State or concerning any flight from a third country to an airport situated on that territory.

3. The sanctions laid down by Member States for infringements of this Regulation shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive."

By not having a position on what the law means, the AUC cannot enforce the above effectively and becomes a poodle of the airlines against which it is supposed to take "effective, proportionate and dissuasive" sanctions.

It is not effective or dissuasive for them to leave interpretation to the airlines like Virgin Atlantic who, in this case, have failed to give proper service or state their position.​

Not really odd at all. Certainly what you quopted and bolded doesn't support the suggestion that it is odd. (As someone who enforces law and works for an australian authority) Weak - well that is another question, but remember that the law has to respect both parties.

As for what you've quoted:
1. They have appointed an authority that enforces the whole regulation, not just the compensation rules. That doesn't mean the bit of the regulation about compensation allows them to enforce anything - see my comment about weak. appointment of a body also doesn't require the body to form an opinion of interpretation
2. You have been allowed to report an alleged infringement. Allowing report of such again doesn't require interpretation of the law.
3. That is about the potential fines for a proven infringement, these are usually set in the bit of legislation. Obviously, they have to be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. But that does not require ab interpretation by the authority for those penalties to be set as per the requirement.

Finally, as I said it is perfectly reasonable to leave interpretation to the airlines. The airlines are required to follow the law and it is therefore their risk if they don't get it right, because they will have a effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalty put on them. They also have highly paid lawyers to advise them.

On the other hand government authorities do not have lots of money to enforce these things because people don't want to pay taxes and properly fund such authorities. So they have to take a pramatic approach or risk based approach to what they devote resources into. I could really go on alot about government funding and how it means that we get the situation you are highlighting. But I won't because it is boring and off topic. But just do not make the mistake of thinking that I'm suggesting that we need big bloated governments. More a note of caution, every time the public gets out and cheers a government for a tax cut, or for cuts to the public service, know that it is the operational side of goverment that is being cut, the people providing the services that we want. Not the bloated side of government, the ministerial advisories and departments for making pollies look good.

 

[Julian P]

Medhead - I take your point.

Perhaps the authority in this case is underfunded and/or wasn't given the teeth it needed.

It seems a shame that the EU and the many MEPs must have spent some time agreeing a very fair law on compensation for downgrading and denied boarding but Virgin Atlantic obviously to not feel compelled to pay what is owed promptly nor to explain themselves.

Also, I am sure the EU and their MEPs did not intend that there would be so much delay or debate about the amount of compensation that would be due in such a relatively simple matter.

Though there is a great article in this that's writing itself...

 

[Cocitus23]

Good luck with this, Julian P. I have just read through the 50+ posts and feel that you have the moral right on your side, and probably the strength of the law, as well.

I hope that someone at Virgin Atlantic is reading this thread, because I noticed how at the outset you were at pains NOT to name and shame them. This was more than decent of you, and I presume that you figured that common sense would quickly prevail at the airline. It was only their continued intransigence and the flood of replies that forced out their identity.

Keep us posted on how it transpires. At the very least they owe you an explanation of how they calculated the refund. My own opinion, for what its worth, is that you should be satisfied if the refund is calculated simply on the SIN-SYD leg.

 

[straitman]

It doesn't show anything sensible. VS have given a refund which they claim to be correct though the OP however claims is not. In the example of a downgrade from 1st, they would have refunded the fare differece ( as they did for OP)

Whether the OP does deserve more is not an open n shut issue since there are numerous get outs in the European legislation. It is quite appropriate , if believing it ro be wrong, to take it to court ( which in UK is so easy that even a muppet could do it - no legal knowledge needed ) . The key problem I see is that given the wordings of the legislation, unless he attends in person to present a case and counter any arguments given by the airline, that he is unlikely to win and would just be out of pocket by the costs of raising the claim and the costs of the hearing' .

if living in the UK could well be worth pursuing, but if living overseas I wouldnt try it; there are some companies that will take claims for breach of EU regs and then pursue it and take a slice of the winnings if it wins which I would be more inclined to go to

Dave

Dave, I could use one of your sayings from the past 'Rubbish' however I'll settle for saying that what makes the world an interesting place is that we are all different and as such have different opinions. Some people are constantly positive and some people are constantly negative :!:

 

[JohnK]

i'm not sure in this case, I am seeing too much siding with the airline. There are arguments both ways as to whether the the OP is entitled to compensation for the whole journey, or just for the leg downgraded. Even the EU documents on the interpretation has an each way bet:

Not sure I agreee with this Mark.

The OP had a trip booked in premium econonmy from LHR-SYD. I assume it was not ticketed LHR-HKG and HKG-SYD but rather the through flight LHR-SYD. So VS at least should have put him up on say QF premium economy LHR-SYD not part premium economy LHR-SIN and part economy on another carrier SIN-SYD. This is totally wrong regardless of how many people think the airline is within it's rights to do it this way. What about the passenger's rights? Who cares as long as the airline is not out of pocket?

Anyway hope the OP gets more than he entitled to get just for being put in this situation. And yes I know airlines overbook cabins but it is not an excuse to downgrade someone.

 

[Dave Noble]

Dave I could use one of your sayings from the past 'Rubbish' however I'll settle for saying that what makes the world an interesting place is that we are all different and as such have different opinions. Some people are constantly positive and some people are constantly negative :!:

Riiight, so you really think it would be possible to win a claim in court for this without attending?

He may well be entitled to more compensation but I would be inclined to use one of the services that offer to extract the owed amount from airlines for a percentage rather than gamble on winning based solely on papers submitted to the court

If he can actually attend, then great, go for it... may win

 

[oz_mark]

So VS at least should have put him up on say QF premium economy LHR-SYD not part premium economy LHR-SIN and part economy on another carrier SIN-SYD.

One would assume that there was no availability in the PE cabins from SIN-SYD, otherwise they in all likelihood would have done so.

 

[serfty]

Lucky for me, but not for Virgin Atlantic, I have appeared in UK Courts at least 100 times. ...

It seems appearing in a UK court should not be an issue for the op.

 

[straitman]

Riiight, so you really think it would be possible to win a claim in court for this without attending?

He may well be entitled to more compensation but I would be inclined to use one of the services that offer to extract the owed amount from airlines for a percentage rather than gamble on winning based solely on papers submitted to the court

If he can actually attend, then great, go for it... may win

Dave,

Last comment.

You missed the point AGAIN :!: