Dazbo HT Mod wrote:

dksbbs,

I tend to agree. The compensation culture is getting silly and only drives prices up, its got to be paid for somehow. While having a safety net is useful and is an incentive to ensure airlines to what they can to keep to schedules, I think it goes too far.

Darren

Most informed commentaries on this specific point of increased fare costs agree that the most it will influence costs is around £1-£2 per flight. Ryanair charge a couple of quid to cover their cost of compliance and if it cost any more than that, do you really think MOL would have wasted the opportunity to charge even more?

The cost of jetfuel is a far bigger percentage component of airline costs than compliance with 261/2004 will ever be. And even if it does go possibly a little far in certain areas, do we as passengers really want to go back to the old days where the airline just says "flight cancelled/delayed, go find your own accommodation and meals and another flight" whatever the reason for the cancellation/delay.

The re-balancing of risk in the Contract of Carriage performed by 261/2004 has very much acted in passengers own interest and I would challenge anyone to find an equivalent insurance policy that would pay out for the same eventualities for the very small increase it makes on overall air fares.

informed commentaries on this specific point of increased fare costs agree that the most it will influence costs is around £1-£2 per flight.

While I am not a fan of the crazy compensation culture we all currently live in, I do think that the burden of costs due to “avoidable” flight delays should be laid fair and square on airlines.

We do already have a much improved situation from the bad old days – my first holiday flight was way back in 1973 with 5 hour delays both ways Newcastle/Ibiza with Britannia Airlines (now TUI) – and not even a free sandwich or cup of coffee provided in those days. It is better now.
But still now airlines are far too ready to give passengers a piece of paper saying “Ooops we were late” and telling them to go try their travel insurance company for compensation.

The AIRLINES should be paying a “Flight delay insurance policy” and there could be a standard, fixed, no argument, payout scale – paid out immediately, by the airline.
Thus premiums for airlines who fly largely on time would be low, and premiums for those airlines running old unreliable planes, or an insufficient number of planes to cover for potential problems, would get hit for high premiums.
I reckon this would have the effect of quickly eliminating completely those crazy airlines trying to run services with only a couple of planes, but unfortunately I think also it would have the effect of concentrating flights to major airports only, because more flights would mean more planning flexibility. Thus regional airports would probably suffer with far less holiday flights.

The CAA advice is here. It tells you when and how to claim and note there are specific amounts depending upon length of flight and delay. Also - a technical fault is not a dealbreaker, if the fault could have been picked up during routine maintenance. Note that the delay needs to be at least 3 hours.
So- if you have been delayed in the last 5 years and still have the paperwork to prove it- go for it

Fiona wrote:

So- if you have been delayed in the last 5 years and still have the paperwork to prove it- go for it

I think you will find that the time limit to commence a legal claim is 6 years from the date of the original delay.