EU airline passengers have been entitled to damage for delays other than those caused by "extraordinary circumstances" such as severe weather or security.

 

The airlines claimed that that also included technical faults on aircraft. The European Court of Justice has decided against the airlines resulting of ten thousands of airline passenger claiming millions of euros.

Took ten years to EU court to enforce a 2004 regulation :smile: good news for us PAX anyway !

Cue price rises and/or airlines going bankrupt.

As Christopher says.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/17/european-court-ruling-boosts-flight-delay-compensation-claims

No way that delays caused by technical issues can be factored into a business model. Now they have to, expect to pay more.

 

It's a classic example of EU stupidity by imposing their will on free market economics in the name of `free trade`. All they've actually achieved is to fund the lawyers who prosecute and defend the actions, and the now-inevitable `hidden manufacturing defect` that seeks to offset liability. That will make planes more expensive causing further increases in charges for the consumer.

 

It does seem as though the EU has an agenda to remove low-cost airlines from the marketplace. 

This is bad news for everyone. All this does is pander to the ridiculous small minded, selfish society we have become (me, me, me) The ridiculous ECJ strikes again. Ironically, no real justice for anyone in the bigger context.

No way that delays caused by technical issues can be factored into a business model. Now they have to, expect to pay more.

 

Of course technical issues can be factored into the airlines' business model. Any airline knows how many technical faults and the consequent delays. Airlines have all the records they need.

 

Why are you more concerned supporting the airlines profits rather than their passengers interests - perhaps you'd like to bump passengers off overbooked flights without compensation too?

Do you see RyanAir paying from 200Euros for a delay that is three hours and longer and still being able to sell tickets for 50? Nobody is saying anything about overbookings..... . At the end YOU (Pax)  will pay the difference and then blame the airline for "overpriced ticket"

Let me ask you this: How much money do you think an airline actually gets from selling a ticket that costs lets say 1000Euros?

Why are you more concerned supporting the airlines profits rather than their passengers interests - perhaps you'd like to bump passengers off overbooked flights without compensation too?

Frankly Gerry, if anyone wants to fly on a shoe string for £49 return, then that's the risk you take from the get go. But once again, it's the £49 per flight public expecting a £200 compensation I would imagine. It is short sighted and damaging for everyone ultimately. If you're paying £250 for the same flight - different story. I hope the ruling is somewhat qualified to factor this in.

Of course technical issues can be factored into the airlines' business model. Any airline knows how many technical faults and the consequent delays. Airlines have all the records they need.

 

Why are you more concerned supporting the airlines profits rather than their passengers interests - perhaps you'd like to bump passengers off overbooked flights without compensation too?

 

Simply put, technical issues amount to a plethora of causation factors above and beyond those prepared for in financial contingency planning. As a matter of so simple fact I'm amazed you missed it, we want the airlines making profits - or else they go out of business and then flights don't happen - it is not the case that any route will always be picked up by another provider. 

 

Unless you're some `public-ownership at any price` hammer and sickle-swinging leftie, you will accommodate the requirement for the provider to make a profit, for the continued contingency of actually being able to provide that service to the consumer, now and into the future.

 

And as a consumer I'm with ErichB - if you're paying £250 for a flight when others are paying £49 that's just being a `poor buyer`. You're still inconvenienced to the same extent for a technical issue that doesn't get you to your destination on time. Remember this isn't about 20 minute delays, this is 3+ hours, which can be just as debilitating on a £49 commuter as on a £250 posh frocks and new knickers toff.  

 

It was precisely why I put emphasis into flying my own plane - not to be beholden to others to make connecting flights, fly into airports 100 miles from where I actually needed to be, or to turn up 6 hours before take-off for the privilege of queuing until the gate actually opens. 

The first unintended consequence of this is that you will find pilots being being pressured to 'pocket' maintenance problems and flying broken airplanes around, especially at the low cost carriers.

I think the opposite might apply - knowing that `no-go` costs, it might actually improve maintenance - the goal being to avoid technical issues that require compensation.

But achieving that means costs, necessarily be passed on to the consumer. 

Doing anything to increase costs or fares will be the last thing any company will do. Improving reliability of modern aircraft is mostly an issue of software instead of mechanics these days. And the reliability of software is something which is out of the airline's hands.

 

The second most likely unintended consequence you will begin to see more is maintenance delays being passed on from one group of passengers to another. Airline operations will plane swap a plane from a later flight to accomodate the passengers of the original broken aircraft and make the passengers of the stolen plane continue the wait for the broken plane to be fixed, resetting the delay clock.

MELs:

 

Will the limit become the norm?

Compensation is not paid unless the delay is more that 3 hrs.  The latest CAA Annual Punctuality Statistics for 2014 show that less than 0.3% flight exceed that time.The airlines' useful idiots can stop worrying about the the state of their finances.

Doesn't the EU have bigger problems to deal with than something that occurs less than 0.3% of the time?