Passenger 1 Airlines 0

[Spaceman3 1]

Uh, this is great news (if you're a lawyer)! I bet those lawyers who took Alitalia to court are drinking some big-time cocktails right now! Alitalia's insurance company will pay the bills. Hey! Wait a minute! That's MY insurance company too! What? They're raising my insurance rates? And, when I'm flying Alitalia in the future, why are they charging me $10 more? And because I have to pay more I have to pay a larger VAT for the EU? Something wrong here. I thought we (the passengers) won this lawsuit! IMHO, Corporations, like Alitalia, usually don't suffer from claims like this. In the long run, it's you and I who suffer from these lawsuits and the lawyers make out like bandits. Here in the United States, the ACLU lawyers are really good at this art of making Corporations pay. It all looks good for the consumer but in the long run most will lose. That's usually what happens when governments try to control a corporations [bad] behavior. If an airline is not on time or has a history of long delays and cancellations, wouldn't it be more prudent to just avoid flying on that airline? I hope Alitalia isn't pressured to bring an aircraft into service with potential mechanical problems so that they can avoid possible claims from passengers. I suppose if the flight does end up crashing, the passengers can then sue the airline for flying an unsafe aircraft... Another "victory for passengers".Respectfully,Jim Young

Alitalia might reconsider how they treat passengers next time. They have no one to blame but themselves. They could've avoided any lawsuit by just treating their passengers a little better and compensating them to begin with. Having spare airplanes available is commonplace, but some airlines in an attempt to squeeze out every last drop of profit run things too leanly. That's a business decision, this lawsuit is the cost of that business decision. I love how in this day an age no one wants to hold corporations and their CEO's accountable for failing.I wonder how some of the airline ceo apologists would feel if they were on that flight and missed their mother's funeral because because some Alitalia exec managed to save a bunch of money for the company by not having backups in place and then just leaving their customers high and dry. I'll bet the exec gets a big bonus. The passengers on the other hand just end up getting it in the rear.

[Guest Locksta]

I think firehawk ended the discussion with his first post. I don't think this is something to be happy about, atleast in my view.

[mgh 89]

I think firehawk ended the discussion with his first post. I don't think this is something to be happy about, atleast in my view.

true - if you are willing to let airlines and any other suppliers walk all over you.

[Guest SpeedBird192]

Don't fly with the airline then.Nobody except the lawyers and one passenger has won here, all future passengers will be paying the bill -- you do understand basic economics right?Rob

[mgh 89]

Don't fly with the airline then.Nobody except the lawyers and one passenger has won here, all future passengers will be paying the bill -- you do understand basic economics right?Rob

How do you identify "good" airlines in this context - thay all claimed that any disruption was extraordinary and beyond their control. Without information there can be no realistic customer choice. You do understand common sense right?Many future passengers whose flights are disrupted will also win. You do understand the facts right? Or do you object to all consumer protection legislation and are happy to allow corporations to set the rules and screw their customers?

[Guest SpeedBird192]

And this is why so many airlines are going under, their operating expenses are beyond their revenue. You obviously don't grasp the economics - nobody provides a service for free because people need to get paid. Even if you're a socialist or communist the concepts the same except money isn't involved. Government funded airlines will eventually say "enough is enough".You do understand what you're suggesting, right, cause I really think you don't, you seem to be only concerned about yourself and "disruption" (like it means the world is coming to an end). So every airline will need to have a "backup plane" ready to roll on every flight at every airport so that customers are NOT disrupted?? That's what you're suggesting. Good luck with that, cause I guarantee you it will NOT happen. If it does happen, then someone has to pay for those backup planes to sit at every airport -- guess who's gonna pay?? Either the Government (guess who pays the government via taxation) or other passengers via increase in ticket prices -- either way, guess who's paying? Not the "corporations" - you! So you either need to chill out and really decide if the "disruption" is worth it.Rob

[mgh 89]

And this is why so many airlines are going under, their operating expenses are beyond their revenue. You obviously don't grasp the economics - nobody provides a service for free because people need to get paid. Even if you're a socialist or communist the concepts the same except money isn't involved. Government funded airlines will eventually say "enough is enough".You do understand what you're suggesting, right, cause I really think you don't, you seem to be only concerned about yourself and "disruption" (like it means the world is coming to an end). So every airline will need to have a "backup plane" ready to roll on every flight at every airport so that customers are NOT disrupted?? That's what you're suggesting. Good luck with that, cause I guarantee you it will NOT happen. If it does happen, then someone has to pay for those backup planes to sit at every airport -- guess who's gonna pay?? Either the Government (guess who pays the government via taxation) or other passengers via increase in ticket prices -- either way, guess who's paying? Not the "corporations" - you! So you either need to chill out and really decide if the "disruption" is worth it.Rob

I do understand the situation. It is that airlines have an obligation to deliver what their passengers have paid for and that if they fail then then they must pay compensation in accordance with the law.Your suggestion that airlines will need to have a "backup plane ready to roll on every flight at every airport" is obvious nonsense and shows that you don't understand the situation. All that airlines have to do is to pay compensation when they fail to deliver what they've agreed to provide. What is wrong with that, or don't you believe in customer rights at all? This case was about preventing airlines claiming that all delays were caused by extraordinary events to avoid paying compensation. The court ruled that that faults discovered during maintenance are not extraordinary, taking the commonsense view that discovering such faults is ordinary and part and parcel of normal day-to-day airline operations.

[KevinAu 441]

I do understand the situation. It is that airlines have an obligation to deliver what their passengers have paid for and that if they fail then then they must pay compensation in accordance with the law.Your suggestion that airlines will need to have a "backup plane ready to roll on every flight at every airport" is obvious nonsense and shows that you don't understand the situation. All that airlines have to do is to pay compensation when they fail to deliver what they've agreed to provide. What is wrong with that, or don't you believe in customer rights at all? This case was about preventing airlines claiming that all delays were caused by extraordinary events to avoid paying compensation. The court ruled that that faults discovered during maintenance are not extraordinary, taking the commonsense view that discovering such faults is ordinary and part and parcel of normal day-to-day airline operations.

How did Alitalia fail to deliver what they agreed to provide? They put the lady on another carrier and she got to her final destination a few hours later than planned.http://ifttablog.blogspot.com/2008_12_01_archive.html

[mgh 89]

How did Alitalia fail to deliver what they agreed to provide? They put the lady on another carrier and she got to her final destination a few hours later than planned.http://ifttablog.blogspot.com/2008_12_01_archive.html

Because in the EU under Regulation No 261/2004 if a flight is cancelled less than 7 days before the scheduled time of departure the passenger has the right to compensation unless offered an alternative flight that departs not more than 1 hour before the original scheduled time of departure and which arrives not more trhan 2 hours after the scheduled time of arrival in respect of all flights of 1500 kilometres or less, unless the airline can show it was due to extraordinary circumstances.In this case, the flight was cancelled 5 minutes before scheduled departure because of a technical fault discovered during an inspection. The passenger arrived 3 1/2 hours after the scheduled arrival time. The airline claimed these were extraordinary circumstance so no compensation was payable. (Airlines normally claim that all faults are extraordinary to avoid payment.) The court ruled that discovering a technical fault during an inspection is not extraordinary so compensation was payable.

[KevinAu 441]

Because in the EU under Regulation No 261/2004 if a flight is cancelled less than 7 days before the scheduled time of departure the passenger has the right to compensation unless offered an alternative flight that departs not more than 1 hour before the original scheduled time of departure and which arrives not more trhan 2 hours after the scheduled time of arrival in respect of all flights of 1500 kilometres or less, unless the airline can show it was due to extraordinary circumstances.In this case, the flight was cancelled 5 minutes before scheduled departure because of a technical fault discovered during an inspection. The passenger arrived 3 1/2 hours after the scheduled arrival time. The airline claimed these were extraordinary circumstance so no compensation was payable. (Airlines normally claim that all faults are extraordinary to avoid payment.) The court ruled that discovering a technical fault during an inspection is not extraordinary so compensation was payable.

Hmmm. These kinds of laws tend to result in unintended consequences. Surely the passengers "win" here. And surely, the airline companies will try to minimize the impact of this. You can't get something for nothing. So something somewhere is going to have to give. Can you guess where? Your safety. Enjoy your flight with the uneasy question of whether your pilots brushed some issue under the rug to get the flight out on time. :(

[Guest SpeedBird192]

The passenger arrived 3.5 hrs late -- that's it?? OMFG. This issue is now officially ridiculous. I'd recommend that this passenger smell the air around them, maybe even stop for a second and look up at the moon, the sun, the sky and realize that life is worth living not complaining about 24/7. So let me get this straight, this passenger was 3.5 hrs late and how many hours and $$ did they take filling the lawsuit??Great just want everyone needs more safety bypassed just because a passenger is late. Some day I hope to meet this passenger, maybe their grave stone will say "successfully sued XYZ airline because I was 3.5 hrs late" -- what an accomplishment in life.

[mgh 89]

The passenger arrived 3.5 hrs late -- that's it?? OMFG. This issue is now officially ridiculous. I'd recommend that this passenger smell the air around them, maybe even stop for a second and look up at the moon, the sun, the sky and realize that life is worth living not complaining about 24/7. So let me get this straight, this passenger was 3.5 hrs late and how many hours and $ did they take filling the lawsuit??Great just want everyone needs more safety bypassed just because a passenger is late. Some day I hope to meet this passenger, maybe their grave stone will say "successfully sued XYZ airline because I was 3.5 hrs late" -- what an accomplishment in life.

Your attitude reflects the airlines' cavalier "d*** the passenger" attitude which resulted in the necessity for this regulation in the first place. Airlines are nothing special, They are just a business and should be expected to deliver, just like any other business. If an airline offers a flight from A to B on a given day with a departure and arrival time it should deliver on that and should provide compensation if it faisl. That's how the world is: and the sooner airlines recognise it the better - the days when passengers felt grateful just for arriving at all are long gone. The regulation only kicks in if the delay is, generally, about twice the flight time. That is reasonable and gives the airline a wide margin. The safety question is a red-herring. Compensation is just another operating cost that the airlines have to incur like many other costs such as staff, fuel, spares, etc. No one suggests (I think) that airlines would try to save operating costs by using sub-standard spares, so why is it implied that they'd try to save on these costs by flying unsafe aircraft?

[KevinAu 441]

No one suggests (I think) that airlines would try to save operating costs by using sub-standard spares, so why is it implied that they'd try to save on these costs by flying unsafe aircraft?

That is very naive of you to think that way.

[mgh 89]

That is very naive of you to think that way.

You've obviously run out of reasoned arguments if that's the best response you can think of.

[KevinAu 441]

You've obviously run out of reasoned arguments if that's the best response you can think of.

Boy you are really naive.The corporations will minimize their costs as much as possible. The losers in this are going to be your flight crews. They will be the ones facing the pressure of having to work under this regulation. They are the ones who will be fired by management if management feels that somebody is being "too safe." They will be the ones who will cut the corners to avoid jeopardizing their livelihoods. Pilots will "backpocket" aircraft problems to avoid delays. In the end, a planeload of unsuspecting passengers may end up being ultimate losers because of those corners cut.The only point at which I think about getting anywhere on time, is when I set my alarm clock the night before. After that, my primary concern is getting myself and my passengers from here to there in a thin aluminum tube at 30000' in one piece. Fortunately, I work for an airline that allows me that luxury. There are many that do not, even without that same law here in the US.We know very well that people take it for granted that they can arrive somewhere safely after getting in an airplane. Fortunately for you, most of the pilots that fly those people, do not.