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.
Jamie2k9 wrote: » Should answer questionshttps://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.
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.
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.
mattser wrote: » French ACT....
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?
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
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
have a flight with available seats leaving the next morning - why did they not rebook her onto that
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/5fffda8352925b36d6f8503d7ddaac66.svg)
