Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
KLM Holds Out On Ash Cloud Compensation  
User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19097 posts, RR: 53
Posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 3190 times:

According to EU rules, passengers must get hotel and meal costs reimbursed for the whole time they are stranded but KLM says it will only pay for 24 hours.

The EU has threatened legal action unless the airline complies.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10972969


"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineshankly From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 1528 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 3062 times:

Setting the law aside (and the fact this story is a bit old now...was on my breakfast bulletin last Friday), KLM have a very valid point

The EU regulations were never intended to apply to such an unprecedented event as this. 24hr cover should be more than adequate.

This law is a reflection of the closeted, softly cushioned, over regulated, ambulance chasing world we now live in. What happened to initiative, self-reliance, pride, free spirit and adventure?

KLM and the other airlines did absolutely nothing wrong except own transport technology that happens to be not very good at transiting through ash



L1011 - P F M
User currently offlineskord From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2008, 562 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 2994 times:

Personally, i find it disgraceful that the airlines should have to pay out for all that mess. It was a 100% act of god, but hay.... lets make the Airlines fork out hundreds of millions of pounds putting up people in 4/5 star hotels for a week, and feed them 3 times a day! Good god... as SHANKLY put it, whatever happened to adults actually being able to look after themselves?
The whole thing is a complete sham and i applaude KLM for sticking to their guns. The morons who implimented this law, and insist on enforcing it, should be removed from their posts as they are clearly not able to see the difference between common sense, and mind-blowing stupidity!!!
How can ANYONE really expect to argue convincingly that the airlines should be held responsible?

The whole thing just makes me so....         


User currently offlinebreiz From France, joined Mar 2005, 1892 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 2923 times:

Maybe should we look into the rules themselves:

"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."


User currently offlineburnsie28 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 7504 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 2818 times:

I agree this is pathetic that the EU is doing this, not only were none of the airlines at fault (its not like it was a maint delay or anything) but the EU was also the one that shut down airspace. So if the EU wants to make someone pay for these people how about the EU do it themselves since they also blocked airlines from flying, so even if KLM wanted to risk it they couldn't.

This is what really ticks me off in the US when passengers think they should get 100% compensated for weather delays etc. Not the airlines fault they don't control the weather and rules like this IMO forces airlines to feel as if they need to try and operate the flight into the max possible conditions that could possibly even be somewhat dangerous to avoid having to pay these rediculous fees/compensation. Yes if the plane is broken, then so be it, but "acts of god" absolutely not.



"Some People Just Know How To Fly"- Best slogan ever, RIP NW 1926-2009
User currently offlineSNLH From Belgium, joined Aug 2010, 30 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 2786 times:

Quoting burnsie28 (Reply 4):
but the EU was also the one that shut down airspace

It was actually each country separately that closed its airspace as this is still a national thing.

But I agree that their should be limits to the care airlines are required to give to passengers for reasons beyond their control ( I do not however agree that a technical issue should be classified as an act of god)


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6109 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2623 times:

Quoting skord (Reply 2):
It was a 100% act of god

The EU is secular !

Quoting breiz (Reply 3):
Maybe should we look into the rules themselves:

"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."

The Montreal Convention is an international minima, the EU rules are above it.

And if I can see the point KLM has, I disagree with that Montreal Convention, if an airline has strikes of its own employees, it's its fault. You could argue the same if the company flies to an unstable country. For weather, it's trickier, for safety concerns as explained by burnsie28.

Back to the EU rules, for me it makes sense if the airline industry is considered an important service, and also if the countries concerned want people to travel to/from/inside them, including people with not much money. When you're on a tight budget, paying for several days hotel for you and your family in an expensive town might not be so easy.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineSNLH From Belgium, joined Aug 2010, 30 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2590 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 6):
Back to the EU rules, for me it makes sense if the airline industry is considered an important service, and also if the countries concerned want people to travel to/from/inside them, including people with not much money. When you're on a tight budget, paying for several days hotel for you and your family in an expensive town might not be so easy.

But I believe there still exist something as a personal risk of the passengers.
A passenger has only booked a flight with an airliner so they took care of their own accommodation.
If they had booked flight+hotel that's a different story.

And if you only have just enough money for your trip , you should reconsider if it's a good idea to take that trip.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6729 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2564 times:

The thread on FR refusing to pay compensation sure got a lot more traction, the general trend of post was that the law was the law and whether fair or not should be followed, this one is much different.

I will say the FR's economic ground were much better since they are a LCC and offer minimal services to keep prices low, cetrainely a lot of their route fares are cheaper than a one night hotel stay in non-upscale hotels, somehow they seem to have gotton over their "issues" with the regulation.


User currently offlinedl767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2545 times:

Something like this shouldn't really fall under the Airline's responsibility. If it were a mechanical issue or something like that and lasted for days then yes the airline should be held responsible but there is no way airlines can control a natural disaster. That's like being stranded in FLorida during a hurricane and demanding that my hotel be paid for by the airline for the 3 days I'm stuck there because the airline can't fly through a hurricane.

User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2500 times:

Quoting shankly (Reply 1):
KLM have a very valid point

I respectfully disagree....they have no valid point at all. Law is specific.......one cannot choose which laws one will, or will not, comply with in any given situation (unless of course one is on a.net when circumstances depend solely on one's particular agenda, lol!!) KLM may disagree with it....that is a valid point....but they are legally obligated to comply with the law.

Quoting shankly (Reply 1):
24hr cover should be more than adequate.

Why should it be "more than adequate" if a passenger has been stranded for several days? Are you thus saying you would accept 24 hours without question?

Quoting SNLH (Reply 7):
And if you only have just enough money for your trip , you should reconsider if it's a good idea to take that trip.

Could you explain that a bit better for me please?

Quoting burnsie28 (Reply 4):
but the EU was also the one that shut down airspace

And you're completely wrong in that.


User currently offlineoa260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 26502 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2474 times:

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 10):
KLM may disagree with it....that is a valid point....but they are legally obligated to comply with the law.

Totally agree and Aer Lingus are another one trying to break the law, I have an outstanding claim with them at the moment and I keep getting excuses every few weeks. It was their staff at the ticket counter on the day that advised me what I would get and which prompted me to make my decisions about a different route.



AEGEAN-OLYMPIC AIR - ΟΛΥΜΠΙΑΚΗ " μέλος στη Star Alliance
User currently offlineTimboflier215 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 1317 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2456 times:

Whilst I do not think the rules were entirely cut out to deal with such an event as the ash cloud, other airlines, including LCC's, reimbursed their pax in full and I think it's disgusting that KLM is STILL holding out. How can they get away with flouting the law?! I notice the EU came down much quicker on Ryanair when they tried something similar whilst the crisis was ongoing. If KLM have an issue, they should reimburse their pax and then take up their case with the EU. Not simply leave their pax out of pocket. Disgusting.

User currently offlineSNLH From Belgium, joined Aug 2010, 30 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2391 times:

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 10):

Quoting SNLH (Reply 7):
And if you only have just enough money for your trip , you should reconsider if it's a good idea to take that trip.

Could you explain that a bit better for me please?

Well it's something that could happen with any project: overtime and over budget. So if you only have a fixed budget and the project cost more, it will not be finished. It would be wise to always have the possibility to have access to some extra cash/credit for things that happen but which are out of your control.

PS: this was as reply on the following message.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 6):
When you're on a tight budget, paying for several days hotel for you and your family in an expensive town might not be so easy.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6109 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2361 times:

Quoting SNLH (Reply 7):
But I believe there still exist something as a personal risk of the passengers.
A passenger has only booked a flight with an airliner so they took care of their own accommodation.
If they had booked flight+hotel that's a different story.

And if you only have just enough money for your trip , you should reconsider if it's a good idea to take that trip.

But there are entire airlines that cater to people with "just enough" money !



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineSNLH From Belgium, joined Aug 2010, 30 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2313 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 14):
But there are entire airlines that cater to people with "just enough" money !

Those people would then have to take the risk of spending the night on the airport floor/seats (unless it's the airlines fault of course) and wait until they start flying again. It's not completely comparable but the personal risk I'm talking about is like the risk there won't be any sunshine at your destination and only rain nevertheless you booked the holiday with the expectation of getting a nice tan but now your stuck in your hotel room.


User currently offlineTimboflier215 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 1317 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2297 times:

Quoting SNLH (Reply 15):

So you're saying that you would have been perfectly happy to have received no/limited compensation if you had been stuck away from home for days because of the ash cloud? And this would apply no matter who you were flying with - KL, AF, BA, LH, FR etc etc

[Edited 2010-08-17 14:18:59]

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24080 posts, RR: 22
Reply 17, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2280 times:

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 10):
Quoting SNLH (Reply 7):
And if you only have just enough money for your trip , you should reconsider if it's a good idea to take that trip.

Could you explain that a bit better for me please?

Seems clear to me. If you don't want to wind up sleeping on an airport floor if your flight is cancelled and they have no space on any flights for the next several days, as many EasyJet passengers have had to do recently due to all their problems, it's best to have some excess cash beyond what you expect to spend if everything goes smoothly.

In the past 3 days, there have been 2 full-page articles on GVA newspapers on EasyJet delays and cancellations and no staff available to provide information or assistance etc. and passengers getting home 2 or 3 days late, or having to purchase tickets on other carriers after their EasyJet flights were cancelled and EasyJet refusing to reimburse them for the cost, saying that they could have accepted their offer to take their next available flight 3 or 4 days later. That's not helpful if you have to return to work/school.


User currently offlineSNLH From Belgium, joined Aug 2010, 30 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2236 times:

Quoting Timboflier215 (Reply 16):

Read the previous posts, it should become more clear were it was about.

It's not about being happy with it or not. It's about charging a company with hotel bill etc for reasons beyond their control. And because we're living humans you could argue that we're the cause that we need accommodation and food.

[Edited 2010-08-17 14:58:01]

User currently offlinebreiz From France, joined Mar 2005, 1892 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2221 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 6):
The Montreal Convention is an international minima, the EU rules are above it.

I quoted the EU rules which note :"As under the Montreal Convention...".


User currently offlineLarSPL From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 473 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (3 years 8 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1976 times:

http://www.klm.com/travel/nl_en/abou...index.htm?WT.mc_id=KLM201002007204


facebook.com/ddaclassicairlines
User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (3 years 8 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1951 times:

I'm amazed that the airlines would be held responsible for a volcano. That clearly falls under "act of G-D," such as weather.

I agree that airlines should be held accountable for delays caused by their own crammed schedules, mechanical issues, etc., and I have followed the EU's progress placing and enforcing rules in this regard. But I think this is going too far.



I come in peace
User currently offlineindolikaa From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 161 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 8 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1899 times:

I'm on KLM's side on this one.

Quoting Timboflier215 (Reply 16):

So you're saying that you would have been perfectly happy to have received no/limited compensation if you had been stuck away from home for days because of the ash cloud? And this would apply no matter who you were flying with - KL, AF, BA, LH, FR etc etc

I myself would not have been happy about it, but I wouldn't demand compensation from the airline. It's not their fault the volcano erupted, and they weren't responsible for closing the airspace. The national/regional authority made the decision to close the airspace.

Compensation for being away from home for days? Could we be any more entitlement-minded? Flying is inherently dangerous and logistically risky. When you step on that plane, you accept the risks, some of which cannot be attributed to the airline. Like weather. Like natural disasters. Like civil unrest. You need to prepare for contingencies. You need to have a plan. You need to take as much responsibility for yourself as much you can.

If people really feel like they are entitled to compensation because a volcano kept them away from their homes, they should send their requests for compensation to either of the two entities responsible for them being stuck in Not-Home-Atopia: the aviation authority who closed the airspace, or God.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 6):
The EU is secular !

Nobody's perfect.



Vote for Pedro
User currently offlineTimboflier215 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 1317 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (3 years 8 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1886 times:

Quoting indolikaa (Reply 22):
I myself would not have been happy about it, but I wouldn't demand compensation from the airline. It's not their fault the volcano erupted, and they weren't responsible for closing the airspace.

Absolutely, and I agree that the rules are wrong. But if it's a legal requirement to pay up, and other airlines have paid up without delay, I would be seriously annoyed if I was a KLM passenger and was denied my LEGAL entitlement.


User currently onlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2806 posts, RR: 27
Reply 24, posted (3 years 8 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1864 times:

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 10):
Law is specific.......one cannot choose which laws one will, or will not, comply with in any given situation

If the law was intended to apply to circumstances that noboby could foresee - which is NOT how courts interpret legislation.

Quoting Timboflier215 (Reply 16):
So you're saying that you would have been perfectly happy to have received no/limited compensation if you had been stuck away from home for days because of the ash cloud? And this would apply no matter who you were flying with - KL, AF, BA, LH, FR etc etc

And how would you feel if the airlines added fees to the fare to cover every possible contingency that is beyond their control that you would hold them liable for - volcanoes, weather, ATC strikes, civil unrest, onboard medical emergency, 9/11? If you're expecting an airline to effectively be the insurer against anything unforeseen and beyond the alirline's control, you could probably expect fares to triple, or more. Airlines are not insurers against acts of god.

BTW, "act of god" is a technical term in insurance law referring to unforeseen and unforeseeable circumstances.



Note à moi-même - il faut respecter les cons.
25 Timboflier215 : That's the thing, I'm not. But I am expecting an airline to do it's legal duty and follow the example of virtually every other airline which was equa
26 shankly : Because AirNZ one is either a "doer" in life or a "whinger". Whingers whinger, doers get on with it. I am a doer and am happy to rely on my initiativ
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Did Airlines Cheat Passengers During Ash Cloud? posted Mon Apr 26 2010 13:50:48 by mrcomet
Will Ash Cloud Affect Boeing? posted Wed Apr 21 2010 16:36:55 by MikeE07
Volcanic Ash Cloud To See End Of Airlines posted Mon Apr 19 2010 03:32:19 by EZYAirbus
KLM Testing Biofuels On Passenger Flight posted Wed Nov 18 2009 18:11:03 by Tommytoyz
Porter Airlines Pilot Passes Out On Flight posted Sat Nov 14 2009 10:51:43 by Darthluke12694
KLM's 3rd 77W On Its Way To Eham posted Thu May 28 2009 13:17:09 by 747ata32
Is The Ash Cloud From The Big Island Impacting? posted Tue Mar 25 2008 08:47:39 by BP1
Picture Of PH-BFC After It Flew Through Ash Cloud? posted Wed Dec 12 2007 08:59:00 by NA
Pictures Of The BA 747 That Flew Into Ash Cloud? posted Thu Nov 8 2007 09:33:31 by N14AZ
KLM Flight 642 On 9/22 Canceled? Why? posted Tue Sep 18 2007 21:27:48 by Schipholjfk