What value should be placed on persistent delays?

[DownunderDave]

I'm curious to know what value AFF members place on a particular airline service persistently delaying their service which impacts on personal time.
I believe it is acceptable to allow an airline to incur delays due to weather events which are beyond their control.
However, if the airline annonces that it is due to operational issues, is that acceptable?
6 hours delay over 5 flights in 3 weeks in my opinion is not acceptable but airlines seem to be immune to having to provide compensation!

 

[Pushka]

I'm curious to know what value AFF members place on a particular airline service persistently delaying their service which impacts on personal time.
I believe it is acceptable to allow an airline to incur delays due to weather events which are beyond their control.
However, if the airline annonces that it is due to operational issues, is that acceptable?
6 hours delay over 5 flights in 3 weeks in my opinion is not acceptable but airlines seem to be immune to having to provide compensation!

Our 11pm flight out of Adelaide International was cancelled at 11.30pm due to operational issues and we were not flown out until 20 hours later. We were given $250 US credit to be used within 3 months when booking a new flight. We already had another flight booked and not anticipating travelling again so the credit was useless.

 

[GoldCanyon340]

I'm curious to know what value AFF members place on a particular airline service persistently delaying their service which impacts on personal time.
I believe it is acceptable to allow an airline to incur delays due to weather events which are beyond their control.
However, if the airline annonces that it is due to operational issues, is that acceptable?
6 hours delay over 5 flights in 3 weeks in my opinion is not acceptable but airlines seem to be immune to having to provide compensation!

This is difficult to answer as the question is so broad. You've experienced an above average length of coughulative delays but if, almost certainly, the aircraft had issues from preventing their on time departure then surely it is better to have those issues resolved? We've all seen with the recent Lion Air crash what happens when, allegedly, technical issues are not dealt with in a timely manner.

There is the different situation of neglect over a period of time. For instance Ansett and its 767s with cracked engine wing struts where high alert advice from Boeing was ignored, slow to be acted upon or mislaid (not getting into that) for six months.

I accept "operational issues" *could* be used as a catch all to hide a less serious issue but how often does that actually happen?

 

[Forg]

I'm not sure how/whether you can put a monetary value on it …
We went to Tassie 3 times in 3 years, flying QF out of HBA each time, and the flights were between 2 & 6 hours delayed.
We were on holidays, and accepted it as part of the risk you take when you fly; if I were trying to do business regularly in or from Hobart I'd be pretty pissed if it happened with that frequency.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

... but if, almost certainly, the aircraft had issues from preventing their on time departure then surely it is better to have those issues resolved?
...
I accept "operational issues" *could* be used as a catch all to hide a less serious issue but how often does that actually happen?

I see it the other way - not that it's better that the issue is fixed on the ground (I take that as a given) - but rather that the issues shouldn't arise in the first place.

I'm buying a ticket on the basis that the airline is providing an airworthy plane, meeting all required standards, and with crew rostered to operate it. Unless caused by weather or ATC*, how/what/why an airline has a delay should be no concern of mine.

I don't necessarily see a one hour delay as being material. But once it starts to get longer the airline should still fix any problems, but should pay comepnsation accrodingly (like Eu261). This quite possibly provides incentives for airlines to avoid 'operational' issues. Multiple short delays, if caused by airline scheduling (for example an impossible schedule) should also be dealt with (potentially by consumer protection laws).

Unfortunately 'operational issues' can be interpreted by the airlines to be quite broad. It could mean the failure for crew to arrive in time. Again, not something the passenger should need to be concerned about.

*ATC unless the airline is operating a schedule that cannot be delivered by ATC, in which case the responsibility goes back to the airline.

 

[Melburnian1]

Australia's domestic airlines do not even guarantee that passengers will arrive (or even depart) on the day booked and the arrival day stipulated in the timetable.

With the excepion of weather or ATC delays, this is unacceptable, because air travel in this country is largely sold on the basis that it is faster than surface transport. Safety is a given and obviously the priority.

Recently I was on the XPT train. We were delayed through no fault of the operator. In the end, we continued, and the drivers and onboard staff made up time, the latter by reducing the duration of station stops. If the train had been cancelled, normally road coaches would be ordered and passengers would arrive on the same day that the timetable says, albeit very late.

Time for a compensation scheme similar to that applying in the EU. This would be bitterly opposed by the airlines, who would try to scare politicians, businesses large and small and consumers by claiming fares would have to be significantly jacked up, but it would make airlines sharpen their act.

 

[GoldCanyon340]

I see it the other way - not that it's better that the issue is fixed on the ground (I take that as a given) - but rather that the issues shouldn't arise in the first place.

I'm buying a ticket on the basis that the airline is providing an airworthy plane, meeting all required standards, and with crew rostered to operate it. Unless caused by weather or ATC*, how/what/why an airline has a delay should be no concern of mine.

I don't necessarily see a one hour delay as being material. But once it starts to get longer the airline should still fix any problems, but should pay comepnsation accrodingly (like Eu261). This quite possibly provides incentives for airlines to avoid 'operational' issues. Multiple short delays, if caused by airline scheduling (for example an impossible schedule) should also be dealt with (potentially by consumer protection laws).

Unfortunately 'operational issues' can be interpreted by the airlines to be quite broad. It could mean the failure for crew to arrive in time. Again, not something the passenger should need to be concerned about.

*ATC unless the airline is operating a schedule that cannot be delivered by ATC, in which case the responsibility goes back to the airline.

Don't get me wrong as I would applaud an EU261 equivalent here. But the likelihood of it happening?

 

[Melburnian1]

Don't get me wrong as I would applaud an EU261 equivalent here. But the likelihood of it happening?

At present: nil, because no politician has announced anything.

All it needs however is some politicians to be personally affected, and by chance read up on what other countries do.

Australians are not good at complaining. God controls the weather, but many other delays are the airlines' fault, and passengers like you suffer.

 

[GoldCanyon340]

At present: nil, because no politician has announced anything.

All it needs however is some politicians to be personally affected, and by chance read up on what other countries do.

Australians are not good at complaining. God controls the weather, but many other delays are the airlines' fault, and passengers like you suffer.

Many of Australia's industries have operated on the essential lack of competition harking back to protectionism or government imposed sanctions a la the Two Airline Policy. This gives them a sense of entitlement and arrogance. But I think both sides of the fence like maintaining the status quo as I just don't think government momentum exists to bring airlines to heel in this way. Australia's geographical isolation is one cause of this; we just don't regularly experience other ways of doing things.

 

[Melburnian1]

An extremely good assessment, GoldCanyon340. As a nation we benefit from international trade, and sometimes lecture other countries about protectionism, or dumping manufactured goods in Oz, but when it comes to ensuring maximum competition in sectors like aviation...forget it. Real (separate) third operators have had a chequered history though.

I'd like to see SQ owning VA totally, and it allowed to operate with free rein, even though that raises questions about the flag behind air operator certificates. But even that wouldn't really change the 21st century version of the two airline policy that we have here (two major companies each owning an LCC).

With airfares showing signs of rising in most if not all categories domestically, the lack of real competition will start to hurt travellers be they businessmen/women, VFR or leisure.

Today's BITRE report shows anaemic growth in air passenger numbers in Oct 2018 compared to Oct 2017.

 

[Forg]

Many of Australia's industries have operated on the essential lack of competition harking back to protectionism or government imposed sanctions a la the Two Airline Policy. This gives them a sense of entitlement and arrogance. But I think both sides of the fence like maintaining the status quo as I just don't think government momentum exists to bring airlines to heel in this way. Australia's geographical isolation is one cause of this; we just don't regularly experience other ways of doing things.

Logistics of being an airline here must be a little difficult in a way; it's probably not possible to just copy what works elsewhere. The regions or countries with the same distances between population centres (and with the same SFA in between) generally aren't in the same socioeconomic circumstance … we have a fairly average population, the distances are large, but on the other hand there aren't reasonable state-supported alternatives (such as trains) to compete with.

 

[trooper]

I think EU261 goes too far but OK..lets have something like it here.....as long as it is appplied to ALL commercial entities.. (and Government for that matter) I am ROUTINELY delayed by doctors, tradesmen, delivery folks etc.... and have sat in waiting rooms belonging to both commercial and government entities WAY past set appointment times.
Why is it only AIRLINES that are seen as liable for wasting peoples time? The Doctor might have an urgent case come in? True... but how is THAT "extraordinary" in any way? It happens so often as to be entirely predictable...to use the argument that supports EC261 the Medical Practice should have the capacity to handle these sudden loads....
The plumber says the previous job "took longer than he thought" How is this MY problem? Airlines (in Europe) pay out regularly when THEIR repair estimates prove inadequate...why does the tradie get to use that excuse?
Many folks here and on FT argue that sudden major mechanical breakdowns are not "extraordinary" events...(hell, ive seen at least one comment that the drone "attacks" at LGW should NOT be considered so for EU261 purposes) yet only airlines (seemingly) are seen as candidates for "sharpening up" by imposing financial penalties for tardiness... Why can't that same financial club be waved at every commercial entity? Why is a 4 hour delay by an airline worthy of 250 euro compensation, but any number of hours extra waiting for a plumber is not worthy of any compensation?

 

[Melburnian1]

I think EU261 goes too far but OK..lets have something like it here.....as long as it is appplied to ALL commercial entities.. (and Government for that matter)...
Many folks here and on FT argue that sudden major mechanical breakdowns are not "extraordinary" events...(hell, ive seen at least one comment that the drone "attacks" at LGW should NOT be considered so for EU261 purposes) yet only airlines (seemingly) are seen as candidates for "sharpening up" by imposing financial penalties for tardiness... Why can't that same financial club be waved at every commercial entity? Why is a 4 hour delay by an airline worthy of 250 euro compensation, but any number of hours extra waiting for a plumber is not worthy of any compensation?

It's not only airlines in Australia where compensation regimes or financial penalties are applicable, or sought to be so by consumers.

Since about 1999, when franchises were awarded in Victoria, the suburban train and tram operators (privately owned) and the rural rail operator (government, but at one stage private) have been subject to financial penalties (including free day tickets handed out to passengers who apply for compensation) in the event that specific monthly targets are not met.

There are also various compensation regimes in place in Victoria (and elsewhere in Oz) for utility companies (private gas and electricity entitities, though typically not government owned water) that fail to meet benchmarks.

Telecommunications companies are also subject to a compensation regime if our service is interrupted.

Some tradies offer guarantees as to when they'll turn up, although you are right: the best I can recall is 'same day' though there may some that give a 'window' of four hours during which they commit to attending.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I think EU261 goes too far but OK..lets have something like it here.....as long as it is appplied to ALL commercial entities.. (and Government for that matter) I am ROUTINELY delayed by doctors, tradesmen, delivery folks etc.... and have sat in waiting rooms belonging to both commercial and government entities WAY past set appointment times.
Why is it only AIRLINES that are seen as liable for wasting peoples time? The Doctor might have an urgent case come in? True... but how is THAT "extraordinary" in any way? It happens so often as to be entirely predictable...to use the argument that supports EC261 the Medical Practice should have the capacity to handle these sudden loads....
The plumber says the previous job "took longer than he thought" How is this MY problem? Airlines (in Europe) pay out regularly when THEIR repair estimates prove inadequate...why does the tradie get to use that excuse?
Many folks here and on FT argue that sudden major mechanical breakdowns are not "extraordinary" events...(hell, ive seen at least one comment that the drone "attacks" at LGW should NOT be considered so for EU261 purposes) yet only airlines (seemingly) are seen as candidates for "sharpening up" by imposing financial penalties for tardiness... Why can't that same financial club be waved at every commercial entity? Why is a 4 hour delay by an airline worthy of 250 euro compensation, but any number of hours extra waiting for a plumber is not worthy of any compensation?

Goes too far? It's just a cost of doing business. And because of the competition, it doesn't really affect fares. Just lowers the profits of the airlines I suspect (based on the fact that fares are really cheap in Europe).

Airlines are singled out because they have tough contracts of adhesion.

If your doctor is running an hour late you can just pick up and go elsewhere, or come back another time. No cost involved.

But for airlines you can't easily walk to another carrier because of last-minute pricing, or in other cases, going to another carrier might cancel your return.

And a doctor being late isn't going to screw up your precious holiday time.

EU261 is designed to get stop passengers having to go to court to enforce their rights (which may not sufficiently reimburse passengers anyway) and to negate the Montreal Convention (which has an easier test for airlines to pass to avoid liability).

 

[Quickstatus]

Why is a 4 hour delay by an airline worthy of 250 euro compensation, but any number of hours extra waiting for a plumber is not worthy of any compensation?

Interesting question, EU261 puts a value on time of the traveller but there is no similar legislated value on the time of customers of various other businesses.

Some businesses have tried to provide a point of difference in an competitive environment by creating such a value - such as “its free if it doesn’t arrive on time”.

I think where a service call is charged, it should be be refunded or waived if the appointment is missed by the trades. In return if the customer does not meet their appointment by not being home then the service call should be charged. The trades get around this by widening the time frame of arrival.

 

[trooper]

Yes they did... but how is "sometime on Tuesday" acceptable? or even "between 8 and 12"... Would people accept that from an airline? Ho ho... Maybe the airlines should try scheduling like that? If its good enough for tradies...…

How is their "no cost" involved in having to abandon a doctors appointment and reschedule? It costs my time (which is the most valuable resource any of us have) , and since when is only "holiday time" precious?

 

[Forg]

Yes they did... but how is "sometime on Tuesday" acceptable? or even "between 8 and 12"... Would people accept that from an airline? Ho ho... Maybe the airlines should try scheduling like that? If its good enough for tradies...…

Except when you’re an airline, it takes X time to get the aircraft to where the PAX are boarding, and Y time to get to where they’re disemboarding.
When you’re fixing some poorly-described random leakage in the pipes of a house or a human, you’re got no idea how long it’s going to take to diagnose & fix.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

How is their "no cost" involved in having to abandon a doctors appointment and reschedule? It costs my time (which is the most valuable resource any of us have) , and since when is only "holiday time" precious?

The cost of our time is somewhat intangible I guess? For many salaried staff a doctor's appointment is simply time off work. So no loss if the doctor takes an extra half an hour. If you're self employed I guess you could continue working on your laptop while waitng.

The issue with airlines is that it's rare you can simply cancel and make alternative arrangement without experiencing significant extra cost or disruption... like having to get your bags bag. Or passing back through immigration.

 

[nutwood]

The cost of our time is somewhat intangible I guess? For many salaried staff a doctor's appointment is simply time off work. So no loss if the doctor takes an extra half an hour. If you're self employed I guess you could continue working on your laptop while waitng.

The issue with airlines is that it's rare you can simply cancel and make alternative arrangement without experiencing significant extra cost or disruption... like having to get your bags bag. Or passing back through immigration.

I could easily place a value on my time. I travel for work and I'm charging someone for doing this, however delays also have other ramifications. Recently, I needed to be in Albury at 8 am in the morning for several hours work. I worked a schedule out wherein I flew to Melbourne late afternoon, then drove to Wangaratta in the early evening. This left me a short drive in the morning, work, then return to Melbourne and a flight home. Lot of travelling for a few hours so, for the sake of the customer, I booked cheap flights.
Of course, the inevitable happened. Endless last minute delays, even after the doors were shut. Ended up in Melbourne hours later than I should have. Driving the Hume Highway at midnight, tired, looking out for roos. Few hours sleep. Driving back to Melbourne, trying to stay awake.
Easy to say, it's all a matter of choice but when you fly for work, you commit to be somewhere at a particular time. Often others are travelling as well and don't appreciate having their time wasted. Do you assume all flights will be delayed and allow an extra three hours everywhere? In the above example, that would have added an extra day onto what was really only a few hours work. Should my client pay for another night's accommodation and my sitting around, just because I might be delayed?