Air traffic control strike - didn't happen. Compensation for cancelled flight?

irishrebe

Hey all,
Not sure if this is the right place for this, but a friend has asked me for advice and I'm not an expert on aviation matters. Apparently there was an announcement of a potential air traffic control strike in Marseille on 12th-13th May and my friend received a text from the airline on 11th May, about 30 hours before the flight was due to take off, telling her it was cancelled and she was rebooked on a flight for two days later. Absolutely no further help offered from the airline whatsoever regarding accommodation, meals or anything else. They just left her stranded abroad with nowhere to stay. As she was unsure of her rights in this situation, she made her own arrangements to get home, rather than stay stranded in a foreign country and not knowing if the airline would even refund her hotel costs or anything. The airline has now refused to pay for her alternative transport costs (which are actually very reasonable, considering she had to book it all last minute).

Now here's the kicker. We've done some research on Flightaware and other sites. The strike didn't happen. No other airline seems to have cancelled flights. At least four other flights took off on the exact same route that day without incident, and even one of the airline's flights on the same route. Surely the airline don't have a leg to stand on here, do they? They preemptively cancelled a flight based on a rumour of a strike which didn't end up going ahead. I've seen a couple of sites which state that if a strike is called off less than half a day before the flight is due to operate, the airline must be ready to operate that flight. If this is true, they are surely in breach of this? And even if they were able to use the 'extraordinary circumstances' strike excuse and get away with it, surely they had some duty of care towards their passenger? 
Seems pretty likely to me that the flight was nowhere near full (she says the flight over wasn't even half full) and they jumped on this 'air traffic control strike' excuse to get away with cancelling and not paying compensation, but they keep insisting that they have acted in accordance with the relevant laws and no compensation is due. Any ideas?

Irish Steve

This is slightly different from the normal cancelled flight queries that come up, but the normal rules still apply, legal advice cannot be given on the site. With that caveat, comments from others who have faced the same situation are of course OK.

Jamie2k9

Should answer questions

https://www.aviationreg.ie/consumer-protection/air-passenger-rights.83.html

When you are notified of a cancellation you should never have been automatically re-booked but given an option to a refund or re booking. If you had taken the re-scheduled flight then you could claim on the hotel costs etc if the airline hadn't offered assistance but as they booked their own flight not sure such costs would be re-reimbursed.

ATC strikes are not in the control of airline and if called off at short notice its again not the airlines fault.

irishrebe

Irish Steve wrote: »

This is slightly different from the normal cancelled flight queries that come up, but the normal rules still apply, legal advice cannot be given on the site. With that caveat, comments from others who have faced the same situation are of course OK.

Thanks...just want to get some other points of view on this. Horrible treatment from the airline.

irishrebe

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Should answer questions

https://www.aviationreg.ie/consumer-protection/air-passenger-rights.83.html

When you are notified of a cancellation you should never have been automatically re-booked but given an option to a refund or re booking.  If you had taken the re-scheduled flight then you could claim on the hotel costs etc if the airline hadn't offered assistance but as they booked their own flight they will likely be entitled to nothing.

ATC strikes are not in the control of airline and if called off at short notice its again not the airlines fault.

She was automatically re-booked. She couldn't stay that long (almost three days longer) because of work commitments, and she also didn't trust them to refund her the costs. She requested a refund for the unused flight, which she got, but they are refusing to pay for the alternative transport she did have to take. I can see on Twitter that they have refused to cover the costs of passengers who did stay the extra three days. They say they are not responsible for any costs because of the strike.
Is it really that cut and dry regarding strikes? There are strikes announced and planned all the time, and a lot of the time they don't happen. The French announce strikes pretty much every single weekend. Does that mean any airline can cancel any flight they fancy? Should they not be expected to make 'reasonable arrangements' like avoiding the airspace or waiting to see if it actually goes ahead? Would the fact that the airline operated a flight on the exact same route that same day not prove that the strike thing was an excuse? If they really believed a strike was happening, why didn't they cancel that morning flight as well? It all stinks to high heaven to me.

Jamie2k9

irishrebe wrote: »

She was automatically re-booked. She couldn't stay that long (almost three days longer) because of work commitments, and she also didn't trust them to refund her the costs. She requested a refund for the unused flight, which she got, but they are refusing to pay for the alternative transport she did have to take. I can see on Twitter that they have refused to cover the costs of passengers who did stay the extra three days. They say they are not responsible for any costs because of the strike.
Is it really that cut and dry regarding strikes? There are strikes announced and planned all the time, and a lot of the time they don't happen. The French announce strikes pretty much every single weekend. Does that mean any airline can cancel any flight they fancy? Should they not be expected to make 'reasonable arrangements' like avoiding the airspace or waiting to see if it actually goes ahead? Would the fact that the airline operated a flight on the exact same route that same day not prove that the strike thing was an excuse? If they really believed a strike was happening, why didn't they cancel that morning flight as well? It all stinks to high heaven to me.

Unless the strike is at the airline, then there is very little grounds to pay out. Airport handlers, ATC are not within there control. When strikes happen sometimes Euro control or national authorities tell airlines they must cancel part of there schedule.

I wouldn't expect a penny for the disruption.

irishrebe

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

She was automatically re-booked. She couldn't stay that long (almost three days longer) because of work commitments, and she also didn't trust them to refund her the costs. She requested a refund for the unused flight, which she got, but they are refusing to pay for the alternative transport she did have to take. I can see on Twitter that they have refused to cover the costs of passengers who did stay the extra three days. They say they are not responsible for any costs because of the strike.
Is it really that cut and dry regarding strikes? There are strikes announced and planned all the time, and a lot of the time they don't happen. The French announce strikes pretty much every single weekend. Does that mean any airline can cancel any flight they fancy? Should they not be expected to make 'reasonable arrangements' like avoiding the airspace or waiting to see if it actually goes ahead? Would the fact that the airline operated a flight on the exact same route that same day not prove that the strike thing was an excuse? If they really believed a strike was happening, why didn't they cancel that morning flight as well? It all stinks to high heaven to me.

Unless the strike is at the airline, then there is very little grounds to pay out.  Airport handlers, ATC are not within there control.  When strikes happen sometimes Euro control or national authorities tell airlines they must cancel part of there schedule.

I wouldn't expect a penny for the disruption.

But it didn't happen. It doesn't look like it was even close to happening. Not a single other airline appears to have cancelled a flight. As I said, this same airline operated one of their own flights, on the same route, earlier on the same day. So they cancelled their evening flight because of this 'strike' and not the morning one? I don't get how they have a leg to stand on here regarding that. Is there any regulation about how far in advance airlines can cancel flights due to potential strike action?

irishrebe

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

She was automatically re-booked. She couldn't stay that long (almost three days longer) because of work commitments, and she also didn't trust them to refund her the costs. She requested a refund for the unused flight, which she got, but they are refusing to pay for the alternative transport she did have to take. I can see on Twitter that they have refused to cover the costs of passengers who did stay the extra three days. They say they are not responsible for any costs because of the strike.
Is it really that cut and dry regarding strikes? There are strikes announced and planned all the time, and a lot of the time they don't happen. The French announce strikes pretty much every single weekend. Does that mean any airline can cancel any flight they fancy? Should they not be expected to make 'reasonable arrangements' like avoiding the airspace or waiting to see if it actually goes ahead? Would the fact that the airline operated a flight on the exact same route that same day not prove that the strike thing was an excuse? If they really believed a strike was happening, why didn't they cancel that morning flight as well? It all stinks to high heaven to me.

Unless the strike is at the airline, then there is very little grounds to pay out.  Airport handlers, ATC are not within there control.  When strikes happen sometimes Euro control or national authorities tell airlines they must cancel part of there schedule.

I wouldn't expect a penny for the disruption.

For instance, when there is a strike of air traffic controllers (which is extraordinary circumstance certainly) that comes to an end half a day before your scheduled time of departure, an airline has to be ready to operate your flight as scheduled. If it doesn’t happen, the occurrence of extraordinary circumstances doesn’t count and an airline is obliged to pay you financial compensation.
[font=Greycliffcf regular, sans-serif]
https://www.claimair.com/blog/what-if-airlines-claim-extraordinary-circumstances/[/font]

mattser

French ACT....

irishrebe

mattser wrote: »

French ACT....

Yes. I can barely even find anything about this 'strike' on Google.  A couple of sources, one of which is half inaccurate (wrong start date given). Nothing like the dozens of links which appear for actual strikes, such as those which are happening this week. How would one find out definitively if the strike was announced or not? Is there any way to obtain that information? Looks like the only cancellation giving it as a reason was my friend's flight, and the same flight the next day (but not other flights of the airline on the same route or of any other airline). What's to stop the airline simply lying?

faoiarvok

irishrebe wrote: »

Yes. I can barely even find anything about this 'strike' on Google.  A couple of sources, one of which is half inaccurate (wrong start date given). Nothing like the dozens of links which appear for actual strikes, such as those which are happening this week. How would one find out definitively if the strike was announced or not? Is there any way to obtain that information? Looks like the only cancellation giving it as a reason was my friend's flight, and the same flight the next day (but not other flights of the airline on the same route or of any other airline). What's to stop the airline simply lying?

Eurocontrol restrictions on the day: https://www.public.nm.eurocontrol.int/PUBPORTAL/gateway/spec/PORTAL.22.0.0.4.26/_res/5438/LFMM2.pdf?APPID=headline_news

irishrebe

faoiarvok wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

Yes. I can barely even find anything about this 'strike' on Google.  A couple of sources, one of which is half inaccurate (wrong start date given). Nothing like the dozens of links which appear for actual strikes, such as those which are happening this week. How would one find out definitively if the strike was announced or not? Is there any way to obtain that information? Looks like the only cancellation giving it as a reason was my friend's flight, and the same flight the next day (but not other flights of the airline on the same route or of any other airline). What's to stop the airline simply lying?

Eurocontrol restrictions on the day: https://www.public.nm.eurocontrol.int/PUBPORTAL/gateway/spec/PORTAL.22.0.0.4.26/_res/5438/LFMM2.pdf?APPID=headline_news

But from what I can gather (and I'm not a pilot or ATC staff), the strike, even if it did happen (how can you find out whether it was cancelled or not?) was affecting one area, it wasn't a complete strike, and the advice was simply slight re-routing, not cancellations, and instructions were given regarding this re-rerouting. Does any announcement of any ATC strike action entitle the airline to cancel the flight, even where cancellations are not ordered or recommended? 
I don't understand why the fact the airline operated a flight on the same route earlier that day, and every other airline managed to operate theirs doesn't prove that cancellation was unnecessary? The airline hardly took all reasonable measures to operate the flight. I can see on the flight trackers that none of them even avoided French airspace, with some appearing to fly very close to Marseille itself. Could that mean the strike was called off, and is it true that the airline must operate the flight if it's called off within half a day of the flight time? If a relatively minor strike goes ahead, then to what extent are airlines expected to take 'reasonable measures' to operate the flight? I can see that today, loads of flights are cancelled, but this wasn't the case that weekend.

JCX BXC

If the strike was announced, then they can cancel. It's not like "it wasn't even close to happening", it was the day before they cancelled and it was announced. If the strike is suddenly called off, it would be often be implausable to uncancel a flight, as crew and aircraft could be elsewhere and there's nothing to operate it. There's also nothing in the EU261 that says they must operate the flight when cancelled.

It's a very unfortunate situation, but nothing can be done. In the future, it's important to remember that the airline must refund reasonable hotel expenses and rebook you, or offer a refund.

irishrebe

JCX BXC wrote: »

If the strike was announced, then they can cancel. It's not like "it wasn't even close to happening", it was the day before they cancelled and it was announced. If the strike is suddenly called off, it would be often be implausable to uncancel a flight, as crew and aircraft could be elsewhere and there's nothing to operate it. There's also nothing in the EU261 that says they must operate the flight when cancelled.

It's a very unfortunate situation, but nothing can be done. In the future, it's important to remember that the airline must refund reasonable hotel expenses and rebook you, or offer a refund.

Even though the document about the strike makes no mention of flight cancellations, does not specify routes to cancel and the airline operated one of their own flights the on the same route the same day? That's extremely worrying. So an announcement of a minor strike anywhere in Europe means an airline can cancel any flight they feel like? With no obligation to justify why they operated their own flight the same day, or why every other airline managed to operate flights in the region? 
My friend was fairly sure she was entitled to a refund of the hotel and food costs but couldn't get any confirmation from the airline regarding how much or when these would be repaid. In such an expensive city with an event happening, and having to book last minute, she'd have been looking at putting the guts of 1000 euros on her credit card, and just didn't trust the airline to pay it back quickly, or at all. What's to stop them telling her she should have found somewhere cheaper, for example, with no proof after the fact that there was nothing cheaper available at the time? Who defines 'reasonable'? I also don't understand why they were supposedly liable for paying for an expensive stay until the new flight, but NOT refunding her alternative travel arrangements, which were about 1/10 of what her staying in that city would have cost them? What about people who desperately need to get to where they're going and can't wait 3 days for a new flight? They just have to pay their own way, booking last minute transport, and too bad for them? 
I wouldn't go near this airline after this, because it's clear they absolutely used it as an excuse to cancel when nobody else did, stranded their passengers with no advice or information about accommodation provision and are not telling their passengers they're not liable for any expenses (which according to you is a downright lie), but the idea that they can get away with it is quite horrifying. Goodness me...what if it had been an 80-year-old travelling alone? Just dumped in a foreign country?

JCX BXC

irishrebe wrote: »

Even though the document about the strike makes no mention of flight cancellations, does not specify routes to cancel and the airline operated one of their own flights the on the same route the same day? That's extremely worrying. So an announcement of a minor strike anywhere in Europe means an airline can cancel any flight they feel like? With no obligation to justify why they operated their own flight the same day, or why every other airline managed to operate flights in the region? 
My friend was fairly sure she was entitled to a refund of the hotel and food costs but couldn't get any confirmation from the airline regarding how much or when these would be repaid. In such an expensive city with an event happening, and having to book last minute, she'd have been looking at putting the guts of 1000 euros on her credit card, and just didn't trust the airline to pay it back quickly, or at all. What's to stop them telling her she should have found somewhere cheaper, for example, with no proof after the fact that there was nothing cheaper available at the time? Who defines 'reasonable'? I also don't understand why they were supposedly liable for paying for an expensive stay until the new flight, but NOT refunding her alternative travel arrangements, which were about 1/10 of what her staying in that city would have cost them? What about people who desperately need to get to where they're going and can't wait 3 days for a new flight? They just have to pay their own way, booking last minute transport, and too bad for them? 
I wouldn't go near this airline after this, because it's clear they absolutely used it as an excuse to cancel when nobody else did, stranded their passengers with no advice or information about accommodation provision and are not telling their passengers they're not liable for any expenses (which according to you is a downright lie), but the idea that they can get away with it is quite horrifying. Goodness me...what if it had been an 80-year-old travelling alone? Just dumped in a foreign country?

You're working under the assumption that the airline are trying to absoultely screw all it's customers. That is not correct, and generally if it tries it gets berated in modern day media.

An ATC strike is considered extraordinary circumstances, and it's quite clear why. EU261 documentation is supposed to be supplied by the airline. It is useful to look it up and see your entitlements. Reasonable is not defined, but there's few cases where someone wasn't refunded. Generally a 3* hotel somewhere near the airport is sufficient, and an airline should pay for that. Requesting your rights at the airport desk is always useful.

You will not be refunded for alternative travel arrangements. Why would you? The airline provides these themselves, and shouldn't have to pay another company a massive fee to do so. If you organise your own transport, expect to pay for it.

You can avoid the airline if you wish, however it's industry standard. You seem completely and utterly outraged in regards to this, which really doesn't solve anything. Being in the EU, we have some of the best consumer protection in the world. If your friend had been stuck in most places outside Europe it wouldn't have been a pretty picture.

Can I ask what flight it was that was cancelled?

irishrebe

JCX BXC wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

Even though the document about the strike makes no mention of flight cancellations, does not specify routes to cancel and the airline operated one of their own flights the on the same route the same day? That's extremely worrying. So an announcement of a minor strike anywhere in Europe means an airline can cancel any flight they feel like? With no obligation to justify why they operated their own flight the same day, or why every other airline managed to operate flights in the region? 
My friend was fairly sure she was entitled to a refund of the hotel and food costs but couldn't get any confirmation from the airline regarding how much or when these would be repaid. In such an expensive city with an event happening, and having to book last minute, she'd have been looking at putting the guts of 1000 euros on her credit card, and just didn't trust the airline to pay it back quickly, or at all. What's to stop them telling her she should have found somewhere cheaper, for example, with no proof after the fact that there was nothing cheaper available at the time? Who defines 'reasonable'? I also don't understand why they were supposedly liable for paying for an expensive stay until the new flight, but NOT refunding her alternative travel arrangements, which were about 1/10 of what her staying in that city would have cost them? What about people who desperately need to get to where they're going and can't wait 3 days for a new flight? They just have to pay their own way, booking last minute transport, and too bad for them? 
I wouldn't go near this airline after this, because it's clear they absolutely used it as an excuse to cancel when nobody else did, stranded their passengers with no advice or information about accommodation provision and are not telling their passengers they're not liable for any expenses (which according to you is a downright lie), but the idea that they can get away with it is quite horrifying. Goodness me...what if it had been an 80-year-old travelling alone? Just dumped in a foreign country?

You're working under the assumption that the airline are trying to absoultely screw all it's customers. That is not correct, and generally if it tries it gets berated in modern day media.

An ATC strike is considered extraordinary circumstances, and it's quite clear why. EU261 documentation is supposed to be supplied by the airline. It is useful to look it up and see your entitlements. Reasonable is not defined, but there's few cases where someone wasn't refunded. Generally a 3* hotel somewhere near the airport is sufficient, and an airline should pay for that. Requesting your rights at the airport desk is always useful.

You will not be refunded for alternative travel arrangements. Why would you? The airline provides these themselves, and shouldn't have to pay another company a massive fee to do so. If you organise your own transport, expect to pay for it.

You can avoid the airline if you wish, however it's industry standard. You seem completely and utterly outraged in regards to this, which really doesn't solve anything. Being in the EU, we have some of the best consumer protection in the world. If your friend had been stuck in most places outside Europe it wouldn't have been a pretty picture.

Can I ask what flight it was that was cancelled?

That's exactly what they're doing, though. This airline I believe has the highest percentage of cancelled flights in Europe, and I have seen many tweets from them telling their stranded passengers that they are not entitled to any help in the event of a strike. I've travelled all over the world and don't think I've ever seen such total disregard from an airline towards its passengers. You keep telling me it's the industry standard, but every other airline managed to operate just fine. 

She couldn't find any 3 star hotels near the airport at such late notice. The place she was staying was booked out and she would have had to go somewhere much more expensive. Why would you be refunded for alternative travel arrangements? Well, she needed to be back for work. The airline she had booked with was the ONLY ONE not flying. So why weren't they responsible for getting her to her destination, on one of their flights or otherwise? That's what I don't understand. 

I'm not sure why you're saying it wouldn't have been a pretty picture elsewhere. It wasn't a pretty picture here, either. She had to get home ASAP and was basically ditched by the airline, like she would have been anywhere. All the arrangements to get home she had to make herself. Couldn't get through to them by phone or email, they ignored her tweets and there were no staff at the airport to ask. Not sure how much worse you think it could have been. Where's the consumer protection, exactly? You book a flight in good faith, they cancel it (while every other airline is still flying), rebook you onto a flight three days later and leave you stranded with no assistance and refuse to pay for you to get home by other means? She wasn't even given the option to rebook herself - THEY changed the flight details and told her she could like it or lump it - another action which is apparently not allowed? She could have rebooked herself onto the earlier flight which left as scheduled in the morning, but she didn't have the option. It was their chosen flight or nothing.

Not sure if she's happy for me to give flight details here, I'll ask. I will tell you she was stranded in one of the most expensive cities in Europe - I certainly wouldn't want to pay 3 days of expenses out of my own pocket, unsure when or if I'd ever get them back.

Might I suggest you have a read of https://www.aviationreg.ie/air-passenger-rights/cancellation.209.html

It might help regarding some of the scenarios they describe and what she can expect.

Like anything on the internet and any advice given and received on a forum its not binding and mostly given in good faith but can be inaccurate.

EU261 was laid down to protect both the consumer and the airlines. It is a very good idea for all passengers to be aware in general of what to expect before travelling. You know those T&C’s the airline gets you to tick but 99.99% of people automatically tick to move on because they think they know what they are entitled to. It is a good idea to know what 261 says so that you don’t go spending far more than you will ever reasonably expect to be compensated for.

irishrebe

Deleted User wrote: »

Might I suggest you have a read of https://www.aviationreg.ie/air-passenger-rights/cancellation.209.html

It might help regarding some of the scenarios they describe and what she can expect.

Like anything on the internet and any advice given and received on a forum its not binding and mostly given in good faith but can be inaccurate.

EU261 was laid down to protect both the consumer and the airlines. It is a very good idea for all passengers to be aware in general of what to expect before travelling. You know those T&C’s the airline gets you to tick but 99.99% of people automatically tick to move on because they think they know what they are entitled to. It is a good idea to know what 261 says so that you don’t go spending far more than you will ever reasonably expect to be compensated for.

I have read it. The issue for me is the vague language used just about everywhere. That link doesn't even specify whether or not hotels and meals are covered if a flight is cancelled with less than 7 days' notice. Just says they either need to provide either an alternative flight arriving not long after the one you booked or give you your money back. The stuff about hotels and meals only applies to flights cancelled when passengers are already at the airport. I believe you are correct, that it also applies in my friend's case, but see how hard it is to find accurate information? I have also yet to find any information on how long the airline has to process the refund. I've never actually had this happen to me - any time a flight of mine has been cancelled, I've been able to go home again or stay with a friend, but I'm shocked that the airline, at a minimum, has no obligation to provide accommodation and meal vouchers UPFRONT. Not everyone would have the means to pay for this stuff out of their own pocket - so what do they do? Lie in the street? I can't stop thinking about how this would be for an elderly person on their own, or someone sick or disabled. How do they find and pay for and get to accommodation at the last minute? It seems woefully inadequate. 

According to your link, the airline is also obliged to prove that "the cancellation could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures were taken". This is where I would have expected my friend to have a case. How can the airline prove this, when every other flight took off, and even one of their own? Wouldn't 'reasonable measures' involve just following those instructions from Eurocontrol? If it couldn't have been avoided, then why did every other airline avoid it, and why did they fly their own plane that same day on that same route? I cannot understand for the life of me how they have a case here. You're basically saying that the 'reasonable measures' part doesn't apply, that they can cry extraordinary circumstances and not have to justify their decision at any time?

irishrebe

irishrebe wrote: »

I have read it. The issue for me is the vague language used just about everywhere. That link doesn't even specify whether or not hotels and meals are covered if a flight is cancelled with less than 7 days' notice. Just says they either need to provide either an alternative flight arriving not long after the one you booked or give you your money back. The stuff about hotels and meals only applies to flights cancelled when passengers are already at the airport. I believe you are correct, that it also applies in my friend's case, but see how hard it is to find accurate information? I have also yet to find any information on how long the airline has to process the refund. I've never actually had this happen to me - any time a flight of mine has been cancelled, I've been able to go home again or stay with a friend, but I'm shocked that the airline, at a minimum, has no obligation to provide accommodation and meal vouchers UPFRONT. Not everyone would have the means to pay for this stuff out of their own pocket - so what do they do? Lie in the street? I can't stop thinking about how this would be for an elderly person on their own, or someone sick or disabled. How do they find and pay for and get to accommodation at the last minute? It seems woefully inadequate. 

According to your link, the airline is also obliged to prove that "the cancellation could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures were taken". This is where I would have expected my friend to have a case. How can the airline prove this, when every other flight took off, and even one of their own? Wouldn't 'reasonable measures' involve just following those instructions from Eurocontrol? If it couldn't have been avoided, then why did every other airline avoid it, and why did they fly their own plane that same day on that same route? I cannot understand for the life of me how they have a case here. You're basically saying that the 'reasonable measures' part doesn't apply, that they can cry extraordinary circumstances and not have to justify their decision at any time?

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:439cd3a7-fd3c-4da7-8bf4-b0f60600c1d6.0004.02/DOC_1&format=PDF

I’ll be honest and say that you’ve probably exhausted any possible answers you could ever hope of achieving from an Internet forum.

I suggest she applies for compensation and a refund under 261 and that is all she appears to be entitled to. The refund and compensation will cover her alternate flight home.

irishrebe

Deleted User wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

I have read it. The issue for me is the vague language used just about everywhere. That link doesn't even specify whether or not hotels and meals are covered if a flight is cancelled with less than 7 days' notice. Just says they either need to provide either an alternative flight arriving not long after the one you booked or give you your money back. The stuff about hotels and meals only applies to flights cancelled when passengers are already at the airport. I believe you are correct, that it also applies in my friend's case, but see how hard it is to find accurate information? I have also yet to find any information on how long the airline has to process the refund. I've never actually had this happen to me - any time a flight of mine has been cancelled, I've been able to go home again or stay with a friend, but I'm shocked that the airline, at a minimum, has no obligation to provide accommodation and meal vouchers UPFRONT. Not everyone would have the means to pay for this stuff out of their own pocket - so what do they do? Lie in the street? I can't stop thinking about how this would be for an elderly person on their own, or someone sick or disabled. How do they find and pay for and get to accommodation at the last minute? It seems woefully inadequate. 

According to your link, the airline is also obliged to prove that "the cancellation could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures were taken". This is where I would have expected my friend to have a case. How can the airline prove this, when every other flight took off, and even one of their own? Wouldn't 'reasonable measures' involve just following those instructions from Eurocontrol? If it couldn't have been avoided, then why did every other airline avoid it, and why did they fly their own plane that same day on that same route? I cannot understand for the life of me how they have a case here. You're basically saying that the 'reasonable measures' part doesn't apply, that they can cry extraordinary circumstances and not have to justify their decision at any time?

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:439cd3a7-fd3c-4da7-8bf4-b0f60600c1d6.0004.02/DOC_1&format=PDF

I’ll be honest and say that you’ve probably exhausted any possible answers you could ever hope of achieving from an Internet forum.

I suggest she applies for compensation and a refund under 261 and that is all she appears to be entitled to. The refund and compensation will cover her alternate flight home.

I think this dispute basically hinges on the definition of 'reasonable measures to avoid a cancellation', since the airline is saying it was unavoidable and we're saying it clearly wasn't, if everyone else managed to fly, and the strike had little to no effect on the ability of the airline to operate the flight. No idea what the precedent is here. 
I think if the airline is refusing to pay any sort of compensation or refund of her expenses, or provide proof that they took 'all reasonable measures' to avoid a cancellation (the definition of 'reasonable measures' of course being totally opaque), then there's no option but to go to one of those third party airline claims firms and see how she gets on. 

I think that even if ATC had put a gun to their heads and stopped them from flying, the way they handled this is an absolute disgrace - passengers not able to contact them, not following protocol (rebooking her flight instead of letting her choose a new one), claiming they're not liable for any costs, basically just stranding their passengers and not giving a flying eff...I would never fly with them in a million years. Hope I can name and shame later.

bkehoe

I can assure you as someone operating on the days you refer to that the strike did indeed happen, was absolutely not minor, and caused large disruption to all adjacent ATC sectors due to the volume of rerouted traffic.

irishrebe

bkehoe wrote: »

I can assure you as someone operating on the days you refer to that the strike did indeed happen, was absolutely not minor, and caused large disruption to all adjacent ATC sectors due to the volume of rerouted traffic.

So why did every other flight operate as scheduled? Why wasn't my friend offered a seat on the morning flight which took off as planned, and for which seats were being sold, instead of one three days later? I'm not saying disruption doesn't happen. I'm saying they dealt with it horribly. They didn't let her rebook herself, they offered a totally unsuitable return flight and left her stranded on her own with zero assistance. How can they possibly not be liable here?

IngazZagni

irishrebe wrote: »

So why did every other flight operate as scheduled? Why wasn't my friend offered a seat on the morning flight which took off as planned, and for which seats were being sold, instead of one three days later? I'm not saying disruption doesn't happen. I'm saying they dealt with it horribly. They didn't let her rebook herself, they offered a totally unsuitable return flight and left her stranded on her own with zero assistance. How can they possibly not be liable here?

Generally during ATC strikes airlines are told to cancel a certain percentage of flights that day. The Marseille ATC strike would cause less disruption than a nationwide strike like we saw last week but none the less would still cause significant disruption and that strike you refer to did happen. So while other airlines operating the same route might be unaffected, those airlines must have cancelled different flights from other airports. Your airline unfortunately chose that one.
As for the other issues well they are customer service issues that you can't really comment on without details.

By the way Marseille ATC are on strike again this weekend.

irishrebe

IngazZagni wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

So why did every other flight operate as scheduled? Why wasn't my friend offered a seat on the morning flight which took off as planned, and for which seats were being sold, instead of one three days later? I'm not saying disruption doesn't happen. I'm saying they dealt with it horribly. They didn't let her rebook herself, they offered a totally unsuitable return flight and left her stranded on her own with zero assistance. How can they possibly not be liable here?

Generally during ATC strikes airlines are told to cancel a certain percentage of flights that day.  The Marseille ATC strike would cause less disruption than a nationwide strike like we saw last week but none the less would still cause significant disruption and that strike you refer to did happen.  So while other airlines operating the same route might be unaffected, those airlines must have cancelled different flights from other airports.  Your airline unfortunately chose that one.
As for the other issues well they are customer service issues that you can't really comment on without details.

By the way Marseille ATC are on strike again this weekend.

I couldn't see any at all but will have another look. The point still stands that the airline failed to carry out its obligations to passengers in such a circumstance - not least offering a suitable alternative flight (three days later is not suitable when you have a flight with available seats leaving the next morning - why did they not rebook her onto that?). What's the comeback here? Can airlines just get away with not abiding by these rules? There's a strike tomorrow and we've arranged a new flight for you two weeks from now, tough sh1t if it doesn't suit you or you need to go back to work on Monday? 

Also shocked that passengers are expected to make all accommodation arrangements and payments themselves and then ask for a refund - what if they don't have the ability to do so, or the means to pay? Pretty shocking 'passenger protection' guidelines from the EU there. My elderly grandparent often flies to this destination - what if God forbid he'd been on this flight? He wouldn't have received any notification of the cancellation because he doesn't have a smartphone. He'd have arrived at the airport to find the flight cancelled and no staff on hand. He wouldn't have a laptop or phone to make last-minute hotel bookings. A confused almost 90-year-old stranded at a foreign airport on his own. Where exactly is the duty of care? 

Multiple tweets on Twitter seen today from this same airline refusing to confirm to passengers affected by this week's strike whether self-booked hotel costs will be covered. They are all being fobbed off or ignored and I can see several people have decided to get home by other means, afraid that they will not be refunded. It's absolutely mind-boggling to me that the airlines are not required by law to inform passengers a) what will be covered and when it will be refunded and b) how to go about claiming (with a link) at the same time as the cancellation announcement. It's all well and good saying passengers should be refunded for costs in theory - this is the advice I gave my friend at the time - but if the airline will not confirm what, when and how passengers will be refunded their costs, how do the passengers know they won't use some obscure clause to dodge the refunds?

notharrypotter

Curious how do you know

have a flight with available seats leaving the next morning - why did they not rebook her onto that

?
Or are you just saying that to paint the villainy of the airline in large brush strokes?

mattser

IngazZagni wrote: »

Generally during ATC strikes airlines are told to cancel a certain percentage of flights that day. The Marseille ATC strike would cause less disruption than a nationwide strike like we saw last week but none the less would still cause significant disruption and that strike you refer to did happen. So while other airlines operating the same route might be unaffected, those airlines must have cancelled different flights from other airports. Your airline unfortunately chose that one.
As for the other issues well they are customer service issues that you can't really comment on without details.

By the way Marseille ATC are on strike again this weekend.

:D The spoiled brats must have a few barbeques planned for the weekend.
Biggest running joke in Europe.

irishrebe

notharrypotter wrote: »

Curious how do you know

have a flight with available seats leaving the next morning - why did they not rebook her onto that

?
Or are you just saying that to paint the villainy of the airline in large brush strokes?

She was looking on their website right after she received the cancellation e-mail and saw that they had seats available. The flight then left the next day as planned. There was also a flight on the Monday morning with seats available, but they put her on the evening flight. No ability for her to choose a different flight without having to pay out of pocket for it. She couldn't get through to the airline to ask if she'd be refunded if she went ahead and booked one of those other flights. I still can't find definitive answer about that. Another poster said the airline was wrong to rebook her and that she should have been given a choice of alternative (that's certainly how it worked when my Aer Lingus flight was cancelled because of the volcano in Iceland). Yet apparently they can get away with doing just that and the passenger has to accept it? 

Would you like to defend the airline's horrific behaviour any further? I wonder would you change your tune if it was an elderly relative of yours they had stranded abroad. Strikes might happen, but there is no excuse for washing your hands of your responsibilities and abandoning your passengers, leading them to believe you won't be refunding any costs. Not sure why you're so insistent on defending this behaviour. The EU legislation is also totally lacking in logic to me. So the airline has to pay your hotel and food costs for several days until the flight they rebooked you onto leaves, but has no obligation at all to get you to where you're going on the day you need to get there? There are circumstances in which if a flight is delayed, they must fly you on another airline if needs be,  at their own cost, but this doesn't apply to cancellations. Where is the logic in that? About six different suitable flights operated on the day of her cancellation (including, as I said, one of the airline's own) but there's no obligation from the airline to put her on one of them? I can't be the only one to find that utterly ludicrous.

JCX BXC

irishrebe wrote: »

Would you like to defend the airline's horrific behaviour any further? I wonder would you change your tune if it was an elderly relative of yours they had stranded abroad.

We're not the airline in question, I don't understand the aggression.

To be honest it's very hard to comment on the case without any specifics. I don't see how anyone could be as outraged with this situation, yes it's not particularly nice however when travelling one should always know their rights. I know in reality this doesn't happen, but it's probably something to keep in mind for many.

And to be honest, I think you've really gotten everything you could here, as GVHOT said. We cannot answer for the airline and I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve at this stage.

irishrebe

mattser wrote: »

IngazZagni wrote: »

Generally during ATC strikes airlines are told to cancel a certain percentage of flights that day.  The Marseille ATC strike would cause less disruption than a nationwide strike like we saw last week but none the less would still cause significant disruption and that strike you refer to did happen.  So while other airlines operating the same route might be unaffected, those airlines must have cancelled different flights from other airports.  Your airline unfortunately chose that one.
As for the other issues well they are customer service issues that you can't really comment on without details.

By the way Marseille ATC are on strike again this weekend.

:D The spoiled brats must have a few barbeques planned for the weekend.
Biggest running joke in Europe.

Friend of mine just missed coming home for his dad's funeral because of them. EU legislation seems to be great for airlines and ATC, not so great for ordinary people trying to get from A to B. The clowns in Brussels don't seem to realise that a lot of people really NEED to fly and aren't just going on a nice holiday. Perhaps if any of them had ever experienced trying to get home at the last minute to a sick relative, funeral, wedding or job interview, they'd change the legislation so that airlines are liable for getting the passenger home on the day they booked. Jesus, even in the arse end of South America, if the bus I'd booked was cancelled, they'd put me on the next available bus, regardless of company, to minimise disruption to plans. Still waiting for evidence of these wonderful 'rights' we're supposed to have in Europe. Stranding potentially distressed people abroad on their own, possibly without the means to pay for their hotel,  forcing the to miss what they were flying over for, when there are dozens of other alternatives, doesn't seem very 'advanced' to me.

duffman13

irishrebe wrote: »

She was looking on their website right after she received the cancellation e-mail and saw that they had seats available. The flight then left the next day as planned. There was also a flight on the Monday morning with seats available, but they put her on the evening flight. No ability for her to choose a different flight without having to pay out of pocket for it. She couldn't get through to the airline to ask if she'd be refunded if she went ahead and booked one of those other flights. I still can't find definitive answer about that. Another poster said the airline was wrong to rebook her and that she should have been given a choice of alternative (that's certainly how it worked when my Aer Lingus flight was cancelled because of the volcano in Iceland). Yet apparently they can get away with doing just that and the passenger has to accept it? 

Would you like to defend the airline's horrific behaviour any further? I wonder would you change your tune if it was an elderly relative of yours they had stranded abroad. Strikes might happen, but there is no excuse for washing your hands of your responsibilities and abandoning your passengers, leading them to believe you won't be refunding any costs. Not sure why you're so insistent on defending this behaviour. The EU legislation is also totally lacking in logic to me. So the airline has to pay your hotel and food costs for several days until the flight they rebooked you onto leaves, but has no obligation at all to get you to where you're going on the day you need to get there? There are circumstances in which if a flight is delayed, they must fly you on another airline if needs be,  at their own cost, but this doesn't apply to cancellations. Where is the logic in that? About six different suitable flights operated on the day of her cancellation (including, as I said, one of the airline's own) but there's no obligation from the airline to put her on one of them? I can't be the only one to find that utterly ludicrous.

And she spoke to an agent who refused to put her on one the available alternative flights? I find that hard to believe, if you feel you have a case then apply for compensation under the directive

irishrebe

JCX BXC wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

Would you like to defend the airline's horrific behaviour any further? I wonder would you change your tune if it was an elderly relative of yours they had stranded abroad.

We're not the airline in question, I don't understand the aggression.

To be honest it's very hard to comment on the case without any specifics. I don't see how anyone could be as outraged with this situation, yes it's not particularly nice however when travelling one should always know their rights. I know in reality this doesn't happen, but it's probably something to keep in mind for many.

And to be honest, I think you've really gotten everything you could here, as GVHOT said. We cannot answer for the airline and I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve at this stage.

You have absolutely no empathy for the situation. According to what another passenger said, the airline were in breach of EU legislation by not letting my friend choose her replacement flight. Yet they're getting away with it. I can see them doing it to other people right now on Twitter, telling them they can either take the alternative offered or get a refund, and ignoring all questions about refunding hotel costs. When an airline is this sneaky, I think it's absolutely fair enough to assume they'll use any excuse in the book to avoid refunding costs, which is what my friend was worried about. The problem is as much the EU legislation here than the airline. A vague statement about 'refunding reasonable expenses' isn't good enough. They should confirm when cancelling that passengers are entitled to assistance, possibly with guidelines about what constitutes 'reasonable' (a hostel bed in Switzerland costs more than a nice hotel room in Slovakia) and provide that assistance. I don't see why an ATC strike has to result in passengers being stranded and utterly shafted.

JCX BXC

Perhaps you should write your concerns to the relevant EU departments?

If I come across as having a lack of empathy, I apologise, it is not a nice situation, however it was not you affected and you seem completely and utterly outraged at the situation and that baffles me.

irishrebe

duffman13 wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

She was looking on their website right after she received the cancellation e-mail and saw that they had seats available. The flight then left the next day as planned. There was also a flight on the Monday morning with seats available, but they put her on the evening flight. No ability for her to choose a different flight without having to pay out of pocket for it. She couldn't get through to the airline to ask if she'd be refunded if she went ahead and booked one of those other flights. I still can't find definitive answer about that. Another poster said the airline was wrong to rebook her and that she should have been given a choice of alternative (that's certainly how it worked when my Aer Lingus flight was cancelled because of the volcano in Iceland). Yet apparently they can get away with doing just that and the passenger has to accept it? 

Would you like to defend the airline's horrific behaviour any further? I wonder would you change your tune if it was an elderly relative of yours they had stranded abroad. Strikes might happen, but there is no excuse for washing your hands of your responsibilities and abandoning your passengers, leading them to believe you won't be refunding any costs. Not sure why you're so insistent on defending this behaviour. The EU legislation is also totally lacking in logic to me. So the airline has to pay your hotel and food costs for several days until the flight they rebooked you onto leaves, but has no obligation at all to get you to where you're going on the day you need to get there? There are circumstances in which if a flight is delayed, they must fly you on another airline if needs be,  at their own cost, but this doesn't apply to cancellations. Where is the logic in that? About six different suitable flights operated on the day of her cancellation (including, as I said, one of the airline's own) but there's no obligation from the airline to put her on one of them? I can't be the only one to find that utterly ludicrous.

And she spoke to an agent who refused to put her on one the available alternative flights? I find that hard to believe, if you feel you have a case then apply for compensation under the directive

She couldn't get through! E-mail ignored, tweets ignored. Again, why is the onus on her to ring them at her own expense, anyway? How are they not obliged to let passengers choose flights in the first place? There is someone on Twitter right now asking if they can have a different alternative flight and are being told NO. They can take what they're offered or accept a refund. So either the airline is oblivious to this rule, or they just don't care.

irishrebe

JCX BXC wrote: »

Perhaps you should write your concerns to the relevant EU departments?

If I come across as having a lack of empathy, I apologise,  it is not a nice situation, however it was not you affected and you seem completely and utterly outraged at the situation and that baffles me.

Because I can't stand to see people being shafted like this. She just wanted to get home, and the airline's actions made everything ten times harder and more stressful than it ever needed to be. Also my granddad regularly flies on this route, and the idea of this happening to him is actually heartbreaking. He wouldn't be able to find and book a new hotel on his own, and would be relying on a Good Samaritan to help (airline staff had all fecked off home in this case). If airlines can just strand passengers with no assistance, then the legislation is severely lacking. I will indeed file a complaint.

john boye

irishrebe wrote: »

Friend of mine just missed coming home for his dad's funeral because of them.

It's a he now?

irishrebe

john boye wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

Friend of mine just missed coming home for his dad's funeral because of them.

It's a he now?

Jesus Christ, Einstein, I'm clearly talking about a different person. This one happened this week, with these new ATC strikes. Very obvious in the context of what I was replying to. Why don't you try learning how to read and employing a bit of common sense before spouting off your smart arse remarks in an attempt to catch me out and make yourself look clever?

Irish Steve

Less of the snarky remarks please, or the thread will be closed

basill

There is another strike this weekend. Best warn all of your friends and get the message out so that they don't get shafted. Perhaps email them all a copy of the EU regs as well in advance.

irishrebe

basill wrote: »

There is another strike this weekend. Best warn all of your friends and get the message out so that they don't get shafted. Perhaps email them all a copy of the EU regs as well in advance.

Well, someone who is flying for something important is going to get shafted no matter what happens, and anyone who hasn't the means or ability to book accommodation out of their own pocket is also going to get shafted, thanks to the weak and insufficient legislation which doesn't oblige airlines to provide passengers with accommodation when they cancel flights. Any idea when these clowns are going to stop striking?

basill

Its their national right. They are French. Happens every summer. The only thing that changes is the ATC sectors involved. They flip flop throughout the summer season. I wish Dublin would do the same on a bank holiday weekend. None of this last minute stuff though. Give me loads of warning so I can book somewhere nice and enjoy a weekend off.

irishrebe

basill wrote: »

Its their national right. They are French. Happens every summer. The only thing that changes is the ATC sectors involved. They flip flop throughout the summer season. I wish Dublin would do the same on a bank holiday weekend. None of this last minute stuff though. Give me loads of warning so I can book somewhere nice and enjoy a weekend off.

I've lived in France and this nonsense really is the epitome of the national 'me, me, me' mindset. They're a pile of @ssholes throwing a tantrum like a three-year-old, resulting in people missing weddings, funerals, job interviews and having their hard earned holidays ruined. No concern whatsoever about the fact the people they are hurting are normal people with their own responsibilities and problems. How do they get away with this? If you want a nice long weekend off, why don't you quit your job and book your nice holiday, without ruining the plans of thousands of innocent passengers? I wonder how people in in all the other industries cope without acting like spoiled brats and causing mayhem every single summer. EU legislation is utter cr@p is this regard. No obligation for the airlines to get passengers where they're going within a reasonable timeframe, or to refund alternative transport costs, so thousands of people are held to ransom, stranded abroad so the French ATC babies can bully people into getting what they want. Passenger protection my hole.

faoiarvok

irishrebe wrote: »

I've lived in France and this nonsense really is the epitome of the national 'me, me, me' mindset. They're a pile of @ssholes throwing a tantrum like a three-year-old, resulting in people missing weddings, funerals, job interviews and having their hard earned holidays ruined. No concern whatsoever about the fact the people they are hurting are normal people with their own responsibilities and problems. How do they get away with this? If you want a nice long weekend off, why don't you quit your job and book your nice holiday, without ruining the plans of thousands of innocent passengers? I wonder how people in in all the other industries cope without acting like spoiled brats and causing mayhem every single summer. EU legislation is utter cr@p is this regard. No obligation for the airlines to get passengers where they're going within a reasonable timeframe, or to refund alternative transport costs, so thousands of people are held to ransom, stranded abroad so the French ATC babies can bully people into getting what they want. Passenger protection my hole.

I don’t know what the grievance is in the latest strikes but often they aren’t striking for themselves, but in solidarity with other public sector employees.

basill

I think your TD would be the best place for you to voice your very real and detailed concerns.

faoiarvok

basill wrote: »

I think your TD would be the best place for you to voice your very real and detailed concerns.

Or MEP?