Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Ruling For Next Flight After Cancellation  
User currently offlineshufflemoomin From Denmark, joined Jun 2010, 471 posts, RR: 1
Posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5916 times:

I read this article tonight that says that airlines are responsible to put you on the next available flight following cancellation, regardless of cost or carrier. Is this in line with current EU regulations or something new?
http://cphpost.dk/news/national/airlines-must-put-you-next-plane

14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineflyingsux From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 50 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5866 times:

In the US it is done -or atleast should be. We used to have to issue FIMS which were at full fare on the other carrier, but now tickets are pushed over to another carrier and accepted at face value - it's known as Rule 120.20. This is only applicable if there is an interline agreement, and sometimes there aren't any flights available for days, but that doesn't sound like the case with this lady.

User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3390 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5837 times:

Quoting flyingsux (Reply 1):
In the US it is done

nope, sorry to say its not done this way. UA sent more than one flight to our destination with its plane load of people while our plane was "unavalible", and didn't bother to rebook anyone till they found a plane, boarded us, then cancled the flight because the pilots would time out in the wrong city for the next day.


User currently offlineflyingsux From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 50 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5809 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 2):
nope, sorry to say its not done this way. UA sent more than one flight to our destination with its plane load of people while our plane was "unavalible",

They can only rebook you on a flight that has seats available. If the plane is full they are not going to deny any of the passengers already booked to put you on board. You will have to wait for an available seat.


User currently offlinetype-rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 4940 posts, RR: 19
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5470 times:

What about rule 240? Isn't it similar? Does it still exist?


Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
User currently offlineflyingsux From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 50 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5269 times:

Quoting type-rated (Reply 4):
What about rule 240? Isn't it similar? Does it still exist?

Basically the same, but Rule 240 applies to the customer/carrier, where 120.20 is an agreement between the carriers. Where I worked, NW always wanted 240 written on paper tickets regardless of the reason.


User currently offlineeastalt From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 29 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5205 times:

The article states that this is an EU policy. I for one would like to know why the airline canceled the flight. There is a lot of information missing from this article.

In the US we would book on other carriers in certain situations, however we would use our next flight first and look for space on another carrier. Its also important to remember not all carriers interline or share revenue. Carriers such as Southwest do not share revenue and would not be bound to this. If this were to happen in the US, we are required to refund the orginal fare and the customer would be responsible for thier travel plans from that point on.

As for Rule 240, I have seen this but its really become an urban myth. Also with the eleimination of paper tickets a 120.20 is not possible as well. Today, any airline wishing to re-route passengers would have to set up and interline e-ticketing agreement and necociate the rate they will pay for this service.


User currently offlineshufflemoomin From Denmark, joined Jun 2010, 471 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5093 times:

As I understand the ruling, the airline must put you on the next available flight regardless of cost or whether the airline has an agreement with the airline operating the new flight or not. If this is new, it could be incredibly expensive for airlines. I assume if there's no prior arrangement between airlines, the one you're booked with will have to pay the full retail fare to the competing airline, right? I see no reason for the competitor to offer a deal. Last minute fares can be pretty expensive. The main question I had about this ruling was whether it was new or based on an existing rule, but I guess it wouldn't have gone to court if that law already stated this is what should happen.

User currently offlinetype-rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 4940 posts, RR: 19
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4799 times:

Quoting shufflemoomin (Reply 7):
As I understand the ruling, the airline must put you on the next available flight regardless of cost or whether the airline has an agreement with the airline operating the new flight or not.

It used to be if the airline couldn't get you to your destination within four hours of your scheduled arrival time of your original flight they were supposed to put you on the next flight, any available class.

This happened to me over a Christmas Holiday with Delta years ago. I was flying SHV-DAL on DL and DAL-ORD on BN.
The flight out of SHV(DC9) had a landing gear warning indication and we waited for 3 hours for the problem to be resolved. I missed my connection to BN at DAL. Braniff said there was nothing they could do for me as all their flights were totally full that day. As I was walking back to the DL ticket counter I encountered and AA CSA. I told him my situation and he walked with me back to the DL ticket counter and told an agent "We're going to Rule 240 this guy". Next thing I knew on was in first class on their (AA) next flight to ORD.



Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
User currently offlineHarleyDriver From United States of America, joined May 2010, 84 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3777 times:

So Ryanair would have to rebook passengers on BA, LH, AF or other full service airlines? I can see O'Leary vigorously fighting this.


Department of Redundancy Department
User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1300 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3138 times:

There is nothing new about the law, it's all the way back from 2005. What is new is that, for the first time, a court of law within the EU has set a precedence.

The law covering passenger rights within the EU applies to all EU based carriers (yes, Ryanair, you too) as well as to all flights that originates or departs the EU. In other words, the law applies to any flight performed to or from the EU by any carrier, regardless of the nationality of the carrier. It also applies to any EU carrier performing a flight wholly outside the EU.

It is hardly surprising airlines have been ducking and weaving to avoid the ultimate consequences of this law, but a ruling has now been set that spells out exactly what those consequences are. Namely that the carrier has signed a contract, and that contract is not a one-way street the carrier can bend and manipulate to its will. Once certain parameters are exceeded, compensation in one form or the other is due. Airlines are supposed to advice passengers of this, in reality you'll have to fight a pretty tough battle to get what's legally yours. In the ultimate case, as we have seen here, the carrier cancelled a flight and as a consequence thereof cut 1 week off a 4 week trip. There were other alternatives available, specifically re-booking on another carrier, which would have seen the plaintiff at destination with a reasonable delay. The carrier, despite it's obligations, chose not to pursue those alternatives. Since the ruling also made it clear the airline must choose an alternative even if it's more expensive, it is not difficult to guess why the airline did what it did.

Now I don't expect, and neither should anybody else, that this ruling will now mean airlines will start following the law. Of course they won't, at least not as long as it's still cheaper to drag the small number of people who insist on their rights to court. Not many people have the patience, skills and surplus to fight Big Airline Inc.



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlineHarleyDriver From United States of America, joined May 2010, 84 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2714 times:

When I was a new ticket agent many moons ago, back in the early '90's to be exact, I Rule 240 a passenger to LHR. I rebooked her through JFK and then on BA1, if I remember correctly. It was Concorde and I heard about it later. As I understand it she was rebooked to a different JFK-LHR flight either on BA or another airline. I quickly learned to check type of equipment when rebooking.


Department of Redundancy Department
User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2123 times:

Can someone explain rule 240/120.20 ...


What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6385 posts, RR: 54
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2044 times:

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 10):
Now I don't expect, and neither should anybody else, that this ruling will now mean airlines will start following the law. Of course they won't, at least not as long as it's still cheaper to drag the small number of people who insist on their rights to court. Not many people have the patience, skills and surplus to fight Big Airline Inc.

This ruling by the Copenhagen City Court has been covered very well by the Danish press, including TV news, and KLM was really dragged through the dirt. That may mean that airlines might be slightly more cautious following the law, at least in this country.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineflyingsux From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 50 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1788 times:

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 12):
Can someone explain rule 240/120.20 ...

To make it simple, it's an agreement that one carrier will accept another carriers ticket at face value for transport between two points. So if you're ticketed BOSATL on DL and the flight is cancelled, they (DL) can rebook you on UA, (UA has to have seats available - they will not bump a customer who has an existing reservation) and UA will accept that portion of the ticket regardless of the fare paid. With etkts its just a matter of pushing control over to the new carrier, with paper tickets the agent would write "Rule 120.20" on the ticket.

The difference between 120.20 and 240 is who the agreement is between and the circumstances. 120.20 is carrier/carrier and 240 is carrier/passenger but it's pretty obsolete since the advent of 120.20.


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...
Data Sources For Airline Flight Schedules posted Mon Apr 23 2012 08:23:15 by BizJet
Request For SIA Flight Attendant posted Mon Jan 9 2012 03:34:02 by thecakeisalie
Man Dies On JQ Flight After Choking On Meal posted Sun Sep 4 2011 13:23:18 by TCASAlert
MRJ On Track For First Flight In 2012 posted Fri Aug 26 2011 11:35:18 by lightsaber
US Man Gets 15 Years Jail For 1968 Flight Hijack posted Tue Jan 4 2011 09:41:38 by BMIFlyer
What Will Be LHs Next Moves After... posted Tue Sep 21 2010 22:22:08 by LH506
DL/US Back On For Slot Swap After WN EWR Deal? posted Tue Aug 31 2010 20:43:52 by smoot4208
DFW: Ambitious Plans For Next 3-5 Years posted Thu Jun 24 2010 15:41:35 by DFWEagle
Plans For A "next Gen" CRJ/ERJ? posted Wed Feb 24 2010 06:09:30 by AVLAirlineFreq
Boeing 787 Good To Go For First Flight. posted Thu Dec 10 2009 17:15:16 by NYC777