Think you’re protected by European consumer laws like EU 261/2004, which forces air carriers to compensate passengers in the event of a delay or cancellation? Think again. A report by the UK watchdog Air Transport Users Council concludes airlines have found a clever way around the rule.
Essentially, they are giving the cold shoulder to passengers who either make a connection on the same carrier or self-book trips on two or more airlines. But that isn’t the only way around the new and largely misunderstood consumer law.
According to the report:
The AUC has received a number of complaints both from passengers who have been left out of pocket because they have missed a flight connection on a “through” ticket on a “network” carrier, and from passengers who have attempted to make their own “connections” on two completely separately contracted flights.
The agency notes that if a passenger has a “through” ticket with a network airline, the airline has a contractual obligation to get them to their destination should they miss their connection. But it would not necessarily offer them any assistance during the delay to their journey.
Under an International Air Transport Association (IATA) Resolution, that is binding on member airlines (most network carriers), the “forwarding air carrier” should provide refreshments and hotel accommodation to passengers who miss their connection when connecting from one IATA airline to another. But the Resolution does not apply if passengers are connecting between two flights of the same airline.
In that case, it’s the airline’s decision to pay for meals and hotel accommodation. While many do, there are at least two notable exceptions. KLM does not provide assistance if the delay to the first flight was due to anything that they consider “outside their control” such as air traffic control or weather. And Continental Airlines goes as far as to say so in its conditions of carriage.
A second way around EU 261/2004 is what I’d call the “not our problem” excuse. A number of passengers make their own connections by buying two or more tickets under separate reservations for flights that connect with each other at an intermediate airport, according to the report. That either saves them time or reduces their travel time.
However, with such connections, each ticket is bought under a separate reservation (and therefore a separate contract) and both carriers have no obligation to refund passengers or put them on another of its flight should passengers miss their connection We have received a number of complaints from passengers who have missed such a connection and have had to pay for a new ticket, often at a more expensive, last minute, fare. And they often have also had to buy meals, and maybe a room for the night, if the next flight isn’t till much later or the next day.
This is a little trickier, because it isn’t clear which airline would be responsible for the compensation. Should carrier A, which had the delay, pay for the hotel? Or should carrier B, to which a passenger is connecting, pick up the tab? The AUC suggests the best way to prevent this from being a problem is educating self-booking air travelers on the risks of buying separate itineraries.
A third way airlines are getting around the rule, which isn’t mentioned in this report, is by playing semantic games. For example, airlines are reluctant to cancel a flight because they would have to pay out more compensation. So they simply “delay” their flight indefinitely. Similarly, airlines are willing to say that almost anything is “beyond their control” in order to wiggle out of EU 261/2004, which has a clause that lets airlines off the hook for circumstances that are out of their hands.
Here’s a tip: if you think your airline is playing fast and loose with Europe’s consumer protection laws, send a firm letter to the airline. It should contain two things. First, mention that you are willing to take this to court if necessary. And second, say that the carrier didn’t follow EU 261/2004.
I’m told that the letter will be assigned a high priority and settled quickly, since airlines will do anything to to avoid having their interpretation of EU 261/2004 challenged in a European court.
Sign up for my 
{ 1 trackback }
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
And then there are the times where they cancel a flight and then just ignore your requests for compensation (and it was an inter-european flight, not back to the US). Thanks Alitalia, I’m never flying you again.
Personally, I agree that if you miss a self-booked connection, neither airline should be required to do anything special to get you to your final destination.
For the first airline: I don’t see them required to help you for the same reason they don’t have to reimburse you for a missed concert, or anything else upon arrival. Their contract is to get you from point A to point B. Point C really isn’t their problem. If they get you their late, you are owed nothing beyond what they should give you for getting you to point B late.
For the second airline: You missed your plane. The fact that the reason you missed it was because you were stuck on another plane that they did not book you on is not relevant. They should not do anything beyond what is normally needed for folks that miss their flight.
When I was traveling a couple of years ago to a small island in the Carribean, I arranged an overnight stopover in a fleabag airport hotel for precisely this reason… there was no way to get from my home to my destination on the same PNR, so I wanted to make sure I wasn’t going to be stuck paying a last-minute full-fare ticket.
Certainly the airlines could be more reasonable with their penalties, grant more compensation, and less free with the “beyond their control” excuse, but if you are trying to save a few bucks by scheduling your own connection, any problems should rightly be up to you to solve.
While I agree self-booked connections are out of the airlines’ hands (and merit no compensation for delays), there are other issues raised in this article. My favorite was the one that said airlines are avoiding “canceling” flights, instead “delaying” them. That suggests a definition of canceled should be made statutorily or judicially at some point. Something along the lines of “A flight which has not left within six hours of its scheduled departure time shall, for the purposes of this regulation, be considered canceled, regardless of whether the airline opts to continue the flight at a later time.”
It reminded me of this: There is an umbrella rodeo association which sanctions individual rodeos put on by local groups (which are members of the afore-mentioned umbrella group). Some local groups produce their rodeo every year; some do not. The umbrella group operates on a calendar year basis, where all rodeos sanctioned for a given year generate points, towards invitations to the annual Finals Rodeo, for the contestants who place at the rodeos.
On occasion, an association will (for logistical or other reasons) have to postpone its rodeo until later in the year. Other times, an association decides it has to cancel its rodeo. One group actually announced that it was postponing its 2006 rodeo until 2007. Kind of like postponing a flight until, well, some point at which anyone would consider it a different flight.
I’ve travelled a lot in Europe, and I’ve had very few problems – I’m pretty aware of EC 261/2004, but nonethless I printed it out as advised if you follow the surf chain above. I was then very interested to see Article 15
“Obligations … may not be limited or waived, notably by a derogation or restrictive clause in the contract of carriage”
Well worth remembering, especially as KLM is mentioned above and I’m a regular (and so far very satisfied) frequent flier!
As I often remark that some things (not nearly all) are better in the EU than in the US, I think I should say that I’ve heard similar stories too. Airlines are in the process of testing the EU law and trying how they can wiggle out. I am pretty confident though that when they keep dragging their feet, the EU will go after them and (re)define some terms of the contract to the advantage of the customer. Unfortunately, everything that’s related to the EU is sslloowwwwwww, so it might take a while.
I am not sure what they’d do for the self-bought connections. My guess is that the best they can do is mandate the flyer to inform the airlines that they made a connection themselves, and set a minimum time (an hour between flights, perhaps two). Subsequently, the airlines are made responsible, and will have to figure out how to split the bill. I guess the late airline should pay the replacement ticket, while the connecting airline is forced to deal with a late passenger. Please note that Europeans generally do not feel bad for large companies and extra regulations, if that benefits the customer. Benefits for companies are less important – even in a restricted market, companies will find a way to make a profit. For instance by increasing prices.
Hello Chris,
I somehow stumbled on your blog today for the first time. As a serious
road warrior for many years, I have often toyed with the idea of creating
such a site – glad to know I don’t have to!
Anyway, good stuff – I’ll help spread the word.
I was reading your recent post “Warning: airlines dodging new European
consumer protection laws” and thought I’d share an experience I had about
this time last year – and expose another way carriers blatantly dodge the EU
261/2004 directive.
I was attending the 3GSM Annual Congress in Barcelona and was returning
from Barcelona to London Heathrow on a British Airways flight, as were
hundreds of other conference delegates and exhibitors.
We (the passengers waiting in the departure lounge for the flight) were
informed that there would be a delay of 30 minutes due to mechanical
problems on the aircraft. That was extended a further 45 minutes or so. We
finally boarded the aircraft, pushed back and taxied out to a spot several
hundred meters away from the gate where we parked. The captain came on to
tell us that the mechanical issues were still causing problems and that we’d
have to sit there until things were fixed.
He did a fine job of keeping us posted throughout the FIVE HOUR PLUS period
of time they detained us – ranging from “we have isolated the faulty engine
part”, to “a new part is being sourced” to “the new part has just arrived
from Heathrow and is being fitted to the engine”.
What was meant to be a roughly 2:20 minute flight resulted in a nearly
eight-hour ordeal. The flight attendants performed two beverage rounds
while we were on the ground, but once airborne, we were told that they
hadn’t had the time to re-stock and therefor there would be no refreshments
to be had in flight. No time? According to my watch, they had plenty.
To say that the majority of the 160 or so business travelers landing about
6.5 hours late were extremely irate would be an understatement bordering on
the perverse. I think the term “seething” would be an appropriate
descriptor for our collective mood. Having missed my entire afternoon’s set
of appointments, I decided to see what I could do in terms of compensation
once I got to Heathrow.
I discovered that the EU 261/2004 directive defines (or at least BA’s
interpretation is) a “delayed” flight that qualifies for traveler
compensation as one that has not left it’s gate within a specified number of
hours after the scheduled time. In this case, it was a flight of “Up to
1500km” and therefor the time limit is two hours. So, BA made sure the
flight left the gate within the 2 hours and because it did, neither I nor
the 159 other passengers were eligible for any compensation, despite the
fact that I had numerous meetings, some of which were very important, that
had to be rescheduled or canceled and that I was effectively held hostage by
BA (i.e. not able to go to another airline to find a way back to the UK).
I asked for BA to at least issue a statement to me, stating that the flight
had arrived more than six hours late – I mentioned that one of the meetings
I had missed as a result of their delay was one that might possibly have
legal ramifications to myself, as it was a court appointment and that, in
theory, I could possibly find myself facing “contempt of court” or “failure
to appear” charges. I reasoned that in such a situation, it would be
extremely useful to have a letter from BA informing “two whom it may
concern” that my failure to appear was well outside my own control.
Well, BA would not take the bait. I ended up escalating the matter until
the most senior BA representative on duty at Heathrow was summoned to
politely tell me what I could go do with myself and gave me a card with the
address of their customer service department, should I wish to register a
formal complaint. I did craft a letter to BA within a week of the event -
I still await a reply.
Anyway – I just thought I’d share this, as your blog post triggered the
memory.
Kind regards,
Forrest Holleman
P.S. – I was once a huge British Airways fan – when I lived in the UK, I would only travel another carrier if I had no choice. Over the last ten years, however, I’ve seen a rapid decline in BA’s service levels (both on the ground and in the air). I now try to avoid flying any One World Alliance flight and have switched my allegiance to the Star Alliance network (and I can apply miles flown on Virgin to my Star Alliance airline of choice, which really helps).
There is a good site http://www.flightmole.com dedicated to reviewing the compensation rules of Regulation EC 261/2004. This site also has a discussion board where passengers can share their experience/tips on pursuing claims for compensation against airlines.
Message: i have booked a flight from muscat to zurich on 16th of june 2008 and obtained chengun visa multi entry but when i arrived to the boarding desk at muscat airport i have been told that i will not be allowed to travell to swizertland since i am omani citizen therefore i went home back, but at the next day i contacted swiss embassy at muscat which they clarify the issue with swiss airline then i travelled the next day. now i have been hurt by the swiss air and many commiments have been cancelled. this issue impacted my feeling and emotion between my society also physically i am not alright negatively therefore i should be compensated by the swiss airline because of this problem. at this time i am prepairing my all documents and evidence to submit it to the court at my country. this is for youre kind information .
this is my complain to swiss airline, and i have received reply from the company to compensate me not more than three hundered dollars, is that fair please let me know otherwise i will go for further actions to the court.
Finnair (the Finnish air-carrier) is being sued by a passenger who was bumped off a scheduled flight. The airline says they instead flew passengers from an earlier flight which was cancelled due to a labour strike on the departing airport. The passenger is demanding 400euros in compensation which was also the recommendation of the consumers advocate bureau. Airline declined to pay and now it’s going to court…
An english description can be found at http://www.kuluttajavirasto.fi/Page/bf3f884a-0104-4497-b941-a4ec89fa96b2.aspx
(scroll to about mid of the larg page or seach finnair on the document).
Hi,
Not directly on topic, but related, I wanted to recount one of our recent experiences flying in Europe.
We were very unhappy passengers on Swiss Airlines LX 292 flying from Zurich to Nairobi on August 14th 2008. We began our trip overseas from San Francisco and made a stop in Switzerland. We purchased a ticket for our onward journey to Nairobi through Expedia.com, flying on Swiss Airlines. The trouble began when arriving at the airport in Zurich, having checked in online, and looking to check in our luggage. Upon leaving the U.S. we were permitted 50 pounds per bag and allowed two pieces of luggage. Accordingly that equates to around 23 kg per bag, with a total of two bags permitted, for a total of around 46 kilos or 100 pounds.
However we were rudely shocked to discover that the TOTAL weight allowance on the Zurich to Nairobi flight was 19 kilos or around 44 pounds. Naturally given that the weight allowance was less than HALF what is typically permitted for longer flights to and from both Europe and the U.S., we were significantly over the limit. While we would have put the matter to rest had the penalt y been around $100 or $200, the problem occurred when we were told that the penalty was 50 Swiss Francs per kilo, or close to $50 per kilo. Having a total of around 60 kilos of combined weight [well within international flight norms of around 90 kilos for two people] we were forced to pay 1000 Swiss Francs [or close to $1000 in excess baggage fees.
In our view, both Expedia.com and Swiss Airlines owe U.S. passengers a duty of care to fully inform them of regulations that significantly diverge from international flight norms. The boilerplate disclaimers that accompany each ticket are not sufficient to provide effective notice. Accordingly, both Expedia and Swiss airlines breached their duty of care to fully inform their passengers when weight limits from departing destinations are less than HALF of the normal allowance. Had we been fully informed, we would have adjusted our plans accordingly. My family lives on the Swiss/German border and we will return for a weeks stay with them after our journey to Kenya. As a result, had we been aware of the unusual regulations in Zurich, we would have left much of our luggage in Germany and arrived at the airport with far less luggage. However, on not a single document were the differing weight regulations prominently noted not on the Expedia ticket, not on the Swiss Airlines boarding pass when we checked in online nowhere. As a result we were forced to pay the obscene $1000 excess baggage charge. Needless to say, we are inclined never to use Expedia or Swiss Airlines ever again.
What made the whole predicament even more outrageous was what we heard from the Swiss airlines office in Nairobi. The call revealed that when one begins ones journey in Nairobi [flying Nairobi-Zurich-Nairobi] the weight limit is 23 kg per bag, and TWO bags are allowed, for a total of a 46 kg allowance. This make it all the more incomprehensible that when flying from Zurich that the lim it would be less than half that amount. Given this disparity and VERY UNUSUAL exception, it seems only fair to inform those flying from Zurich of this unusual, if not absurd, regulation of 19 kg total allowance per passenger. The fee of almost $50 per kilo simply adds insult to injury.The attitude of the Swiss Airlines customer support was particularly outrageous. I explained that I had flown from Nairobi to Zurich a number of times in the past and never faced encountered these onerous weight regulations. Given that my past tickets were purchased originating in Nairobi, the prevailing regulations from Kenya confirm my experience. However, the customer support person directly insinuated that we were fully aware of the weight regulations in Zurich and were just trying to make a fuss and get away with it. This was an absurd accusation, especially since we had a place to leave our luggage [with my family in Germany] and would have done so had we known. Moreover, we explained to them that a large part of the excess weight we were carrying were baby clothes [donated by a friend of ours] for Mama Ngina Childrens Home, a home for orphaned children in Nairobi. Infact, my wife and I have set up a non-profit in the U.S. to benefit these orphans – the website is http://www.mamangina.org. But the Swiss Airlines personnel were unmoved by our situation – they were going to stick it to us, even though the flight was less than 70% full, and we had 4 seats next to us on which to spread out. Hard to believe [but true] that they would be so heatless and place no value on customer service.
So far, and attempts at reimbursement from Swiss Airlines or Expedia have been rebuffed. Needless to say, we are really upset about it. Anyone else go through a similar set of experiences and have any luck with some form of recourse?