If anyone has been abandoned by any company who had a legal responsiblity to look after them (certain airlines for a start) then the CAA and Department of Trade should be looking at not recompensing them but simply taking forceful action against those responsible and seizing assets to pay liabilities. But there is a question over what should be recompensed. I was gobsmacked to see someone being interviewed on TV saying how he had "Had" to pay for a taxi from Amsterdam to Brussels. Why ? There are three trains an hour on that route, admittedly those carrying on to Paris would be a bit busy but at least one an hour doesn't even need reservations. So the most he ought to be entitled to is the train fare.

Rather than get involved trying to sort out a huge pile of receipts, some of them questionable, the government would be better off sorting out the system for future disruption. Back up EC261/2004 with proper, serious fines for airlines that don't comply. Make it a legal requirement that every ticket comes with the EC261/2004 rules. Make them set up a levy scheme with a protected pot (like Tours Ops) - if the airlines had paid £1 for every passenger they had carried since the 9/11 shut down they wouldn't be bleating about how much the hotels are costing them now.

And surely it's time to sort out the use of "act of God" clauses in insurance policies. In fact it could be easier than that, it would be easy to say clearly that they would not cover disruption costs at all but would give legal assistance to claim back from companies who are not complying with legal requirements.

the problem is that it's human nature to rake over the past but try not to think of things going wrong in the future.

if the airlines had paid £1 for every passenger they had carried since the 9/11 shut down they wouldn't be bleating about how much the hotels are costing them now.

Doubt that Steve. They would have used it for something else by now. It would be like the pension funds we have all paid into.

Of course the T&Cs explain quite clearly what is excluded but few people ever read them - until they have a claim rejected and then complain it is not fair. A point you have raised many times. Listening to some of the people interviewed I got the impression that the higher the cost the bigger the badge of honour in some cases. I wonder how many have simply ignored/rejected the TOs offer to pay the hotel bills and who have simply decided to head home in the mistaken belief they would claim it back once home?

fwh

My daughter and her family seem to have been abandoned by Singapore airlines.
They had a hotel for the first 2 nights paid by the airline but have had to find their own accommodation since.
They were even sent to a hotel last night in the Red light district!
Thankfully the taxi driver taking them informed them and they found another hotel.
The 3 children are anxious over the uncertainty of it all and they are relying on family and friends to keep them updated with the latest news.
They are hoping to get to either Barcelona,Frankfurt of Rome and then my son will drive down and pick them up.
I am due to go away on May 2nd but I hope it is cancelled and the flights are used to bring everyone home.

fwh

I didn't say I'd let the airlines control the fund, just that they should pay into it! The ATOL scheme works for Tour Op failures, it only needs a slight tweaking and a seperate bank account.

But you're very true about the badge of honour, there seems to be some odd competition on for who can come up with the most unnecessarilly expensive way home, which usually involves a car rather than public transport. I think some people need to visit somewhere like "The Works" when they get back and invest £5 in a decent European atlas, then maybe they'd understand why €2500 may not be that expensive for a one way rental from southern Spain to Calais when the company has got to find a way of getting them back (or did they think the cars would be sold when they got there??).

Well it's nice to see some operators are on the ball. I made a reservation just recently for my parents to fly out to visit us in Cyprus this coming November.

I received this email today from Sunshine.co.uk:

All sunshine.co.uk customers who have had to cancel their bookings due to the recent disruptions caused by Volcanic Ash will receive a full refund.

Customers will receive full refunds for any hotel, transfer and parking bookings as well as receiving a refund for any flight cancellations to which they are legally entitled.

Read more here - http://blog.sunshine.co.uk/100-refunds-sunshinecouk-customers/

If you're looking for up to date information on the disruption, click here - http://www.sunshine.co.uk/alert/

I presume they've just sent a blanket email to all online reservations which is good news.

That is a really useful webpage and not just for their own passengers, the link to the EU press release which in turn links to their list of national regulatory enforcement agencies is brilliant. Give Sunshine some brownie points!

Yes they've done really well.

Just hope nobody starts whinging when the price of air tickets rockets next year, as they surely will to pay for this lot....Gone are the days of the £50 ticket when you expect the airline to pick up the bill for every eventuality. Doesnt make sense..

Doesn't have to be the end. The law about the right to care has been in place for about 5 years. If the airlines had set up a fund then and paid in £1 for every ticket sold in those years they wouldn't be looking at these losses now. Just plain bad management. Remember, years ago no-one had protection rights on package tours and then the ATOL scheme was set up. That requires a small amount from every booking but didn't kill off the market. What the motor mouths like OLeary fail to notice is that if they set up a voluntary scheme for their own company it would be something positive they could use in future marketing "fly with us, we have a fund to look after you if things go wrong". First ones in will be heros and the rest will just be catching up.