Possible strike at Belgocontrol on 25 June

[sean1982]

And what does that have to do with this ATC strike?
This article has also been pulled completely out of context, feel free to open another topic abou that and I will explain. Anything is good for a piss on FR, no Wouter? Sad

[Passenger]

What happened yesterday – some passengers were cared for, others were sent home – proofs that the legislation leaves too much tolerance. The legislation that matters for a strike is EU-Rule 261/2004. For a strike by ATC, these are the main clausules:

14) As under the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier.

(15) Extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where the impact of an air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft on a particular day gives rise to a long delay, an overnight delay, or the cancellation of one or more flights by that aircraft, even though all reasonable measures had been taken by the air carrier concerned to avoid the delays or cancellations.

What happened yesterday at BRU proofs that airlines have a different view for the clause “obligations are limited or excluded” in the above legislation. Some airlines (most legacy carriers) read “limited or excluded” as “they are limited”, whilst other airlines (a few low cost airlines) read “limited or excluded” as “they are excluded”.

Another important clause of 261/2004 is Article 8 - Right to reimbursement or re-routing:

1. Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall be offered the choice between:
(a) - reimbursement within seven days, by the means provided for in Article 7(3), of the full cost of the ticket at the price at which it was bought, for the part or parts of the journey not made, and for the part or parts already made if the flight is no longer serving any purpose in relation to the passenger's original travel plan, together with, when relevant,
- a return flight to the first point of departure, at the earliest opportunity;
(b) re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination at the earliest opportunity; or
(c) re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination at a later date at the passenger's convenience, subject to availability of seats.

Once again, what happened yesterday at BRU proofs that airlines have a different view for the clause “at the earliest opportunity”. Some airlines (all legacy carriers) regard it as “as soon as the strike is over and we can fly again”. Other airlines (some of the cost airlines) read it as “no, flight is cancelled, so it's now as soon as our system shows availibality: could be today, could be next week”.

Same applies for the clause “re-routing”. For some airlines (all legacy carriers) there are no limits to re-route, except for the booking class. They will even ask other carriers for a seat (booking code IR involuntary rebooking). Some other airlines (some of the low cost airlines) limit it to own flights. Some low costs and deny the clients the right to choose between reimbursement and re-booking.

Conclusion

Who has the right interpretation? The EU Court has stated that EU-Rule 261/2004 is a consumer protection law and should be read as such. In case of doubt, it must be interpreted in favour of the passengers. Some will remember the verdict of the EU Court of Justice in which an Irish low cost carrier was forced to pay for the hotel costs and meals of Irish passengers, stranded in Porto, although it was a clear example of extraordinary circumstances. “Passengers are entitled for protection, specially when they are stranded in a foreign country”, the EU Court stated.

The wrong interpretion of 261/2004 by some airlines forced the European Commission and the European Parliament to review 261/2004. At this moment there is a stand still because the sub-commissions have to be re-composed. But the new sub-commission will soon continue with the review.

Meanwhile, my best advise for clients flying with low cost carriers, is: don’t forget to buy a legal advise insurance (rechtsbijstand / assistance juridique).

Main page - with language choice - for 261/2004:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ ... 32004R0261

[sean1982]

Yesterday, nothing happened at BRU, as I said FR passengers received exactly the same assistance as SN passengers and in full compliance with 261/2004 that means: hotels, meal vouchers, phone calls, refunds or re-routing even through other bases/airports or with multiple stops.

[Inquirer]

Interesting reading related to the topic and the claims above:
http://netto.tijd.be/budget_en_vrije_ti ... etto&ckc=1

in short:
according to Jos Speybrouck, lawyer at Vives (specialized in travel law) passengers can not claim any indemnities, but airlines should provide them with sufficient pampering (free drinks, food, and 2 phone calls) and also offer passengers hotel accomodation whenever needed.

[AirOpinion]

Passengers are free to book any hotel they like and that will be fully re-imbursed

That would not fit for me... It is the operator who needs to provide for hotac and transport frim/to. This is not compliant to EC261.

[sean1982]

Passengers are free to book any hotel they like and that will be fully re-imbursed

That would not fit for me... It is the operator who needs to provide for hotac and transport frim/to. This is not compliant to EC261.

Wrong, where hotel and transport costs that are re-imbursed is completely in line. It doesnt state anywhere that the operator needs to provide it, just that it needs to be free of charge, which it is if everything is re-imbursed

[Passenger]

Passengers are free to book any hotel they like and that will be fully re-imbursed

That would not fit for me... It is the operator who needs to provide for hotac and transport frim/to. This is not compliant to EC261.

Wrong, where hotel and transport costs that are re-imbursed is completely in line. It doesnt state anywhere that the operator needs to provide it, just that it needs to be free of charge, which it is if everything is re-imbursed

This is exactly why 261/2004 has to be reviewed by the EU: because some airlines give an own interpretion to certain clauses. Once again: EU 261/2004 is consumer protection legislation, and airlines have to read it as such. Even if the passengers have paid less for their tickets then these hotel costs.

In case of cancellation of a flight, the passengers concerned shall be offered assistance by the operating air carrier…

Right to care… Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall be offered free of charge: (a) meals and refreshments in a reasonable relation to the waiting time; (b) hotel accommodation in cases.

“shall be offered free of charge” doesn’t mean “you book it, you pay for it, then send us an email with your invoice, and we will then refund you”.

No airline is allowed to give another interpretation then what it is. “…Passengers shall be offered free of charge…” doesn't mean "you buy, and we'll refund you". No: it only means: “here is a voucher for a b/b stay in a standard room at the Novotel Brussels Airport Hotel in Diegem; please proceed to the Bus Terminal on -1 and you will see the shuttle bus there – it rides every 15 minutes. If there is no bus within half an hour, please come back to this desk”.

Passengers are free to book any hotel they like and that will be fully re-imbursed

The chances that I will win the jackpot at Friday’s Euromillions are higher then the chance that Ryanair will reimbourse the hotel costs from passengers stranded because of yesterday’s strike. I’m quite sure that the reply mail is already ready: “dear sir/madam, a strike by ATC is extreme circumstance as per EU 261/2004 and the Montreal Convention. Therefore, we regret to inform you that Ryanair is not reliable for the damage the strike caused to you…”

Wouldn't it be ver very very strange that an airline that saves on costs where ever it can, will now spend thousands of euro's by allowing passengers to overnight at the Hilton on Ryanair's expenses?

(edited -> typo error)

[sean1982]

Have you looked into your glass ball and predicted the future? FR have set up an internal fund especially for cases like this, so yes hotels will be re-imbursed and thus provided free-of-charge as per EU legistlation.

Its no surprise that a topic on an ATC strike on luchtzak has turned into an FR bash, as usual

[Inquirer]

hotels will be re-imbursed and thus provided free-of-charge as per EU legistlation.

Yet this is not providing hotel accomodation like the EU legislation asks for, but rather reimbursing the costs for such accomodation?!

Whereas it may look the same at first, this subtle difference has of course a significant impact for the airline as well as the passengers concerned because it shifts the trouble of finding hotel accomodation to the individual passenger, while on top it potentially constitutes a cost saving for the airline too as not all passengers will bother claiming the costs back.

I know for a fact that in retail, 100% pay back offers on a product which first need to be bought cost not even a tenth of promotional actions in which coupons for a free product are distributed, despite the outcome being the same: a cost free product for the consumer, so I'd expect the same mechanism to apply here, which probably is the whole reason why Ryan Air does it this way.

As such, I don't think it's correct to pretend Ryanair have provided exactly the same as any other airline after cancelling their flights yesterday: at least when it comes to organising hotel accomodation and dealing with the settlement of its costs, there sure wasn't much service rendered by them.

[sean1982]

What a surprise you gave that reaction

It's off course very difficult to find a hotel around BRU
Rather then waiting for 4 hours untill hotel have been found, buses organised etc.. Our passengers could take the first hotel shuttle to the hotel of their choice and start their rest, but even if we would give them a 1 kg gold bar on top of it, you and your buddies would still have something to say. Nuff said

[SFM]

Just wondering: can you pick any hotel? Because if it were me, I'd choose a big suite in the fanciest, most expensive hotel I could find, because hey, Ryanair's paying.
But I suppose there is a maximum amount set or am I wrong?

[sean1982]

Yes off course, it needs to be a standard room with breakfast only.

[SFM]

Yes off course, it needs to be a standard room with breakfast only.

Thanks for the answer. But the passenger can still pick any hotel?
I'm not familiar with hotel prices, but I'm sure there are some hotels in Paris, London, Milan,... where even a standard room can set you back a few hundred €.

[sean1982]

Not 100% sure, I would need to check with customer service on that. Im sure that passengers get that info from the customer service desk when they ask for a re-routing.

[Passenger]

I will only believe that passengers may indeed choose a five star luxury hotel at their own choice, b/b, when this refund promise is added on this special page on Ryanair.com about this Belgian strike:

http://www.ryanair.com/ie/notices/14062 ... france_en/

[sean1982]

http://www.ryanair.com/doc/faqs/eu261-en.pdf
Last paragraph

[SFM]

http://www.ryanair.com/doc/faqs/eu261-en.pdf
Last paragraph

Thanks.

"Ryanair will reimburse you for your reasonable receipted expenses".
Reasonable => I guess they mean no Ritz Hotel, but they don't explicitly mention a maximum amount they will reimburse for hotel accommodation.

[Passenger]

Negotiations have been suspended at 21h and will resume at 11h a.m. on Friday.

Meanwhile, no passengers will be taken hostage.

(source : HLN.be)

[Inquirer]

What a surprise you gave that reaction
even if we would give them a 1 kg gold bar on top of it, you and your buddies would still have something to say.

Look, I am not married to any airline, so that allows me to look at them in a rational and analytical way, something which is often missing here as emotions take over, but I agree that if you look at them in that way, you're not often going to find much bragging rights in what you see airlines do.

Ryanair's business model requires extremely strict cost control: it's at the very core of it even, I'd say.
As such, it it perfectly understandable why legislative actions which risk driving up costs are immeditely to be blocked off before they can materialise into a risk to their business model and if they are unavoidable anyway, are to be interpreted and applied is such a way that they limit the additional costs to the absolute minimum.

Note that this not even critisism from me like you imply, it's simply the only way in which they can protect their business model against the consequences of ever more protective EU legislation which risks becoming overly expensive in relation to the very modest revenues generated by a low fare airline like ryanair and it's precisely what we see being demonstrated here by them: formal compliance with the EU legislation in all the legal small print, yet applied in a very timid and customer unfriendly way so as to make the hurdle for ordinary passengers as high as possible to enforce their rights.

Personally, while I am in favour of passenger protection laws, I think it would be more logical for indemnities and provisions being made dependant on the cost of the flight, as that would possibly limit airlines from trying to dodge their obligations all the time, something we constantly see them do these days.

[sean1982]

What hurdle? Is sending a letter with a receipt to an adress too complicated for you?