As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[Volcano] Should the Airlines Pay Compensation?

13

Posts

  • HamurabiHamurabi MiamiRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    BubbaT wrote: »
    If they're not refunding ticket prices, how are they losing 200 Million per day?

    Honest question, I just don't get the math. That's a lot of fucking money considering they aren't burning any fuel if the planes aren't in the air.

    They could just be referring to lost revenue, as a result of people not buying tickets because they know no flights are being operated. Similar to how the MPAA claims lost revenue from pirated movies based on theoretical customers not buying movie tickets.

    I don't know whether or not you're saying the airlines' figure is bologna like the MPAA's, but I assume the $200 million figure is in fact the money they would've made if everything was normal right now. And that's (probably) gross revenue -- not profit.

    Hamurabi on
  • EndEnd Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    But if they raise the price, fewer people will buy tickets, thereby cutting airline profits even more.

    There's a point where flying people around could become unprofitable.

    Thems the breaks.

    Of course, there's always getting more money from the government.... ;-)

    End on
    I wish that someway, somehow, that I could save every one of us
    zaleiria-by-lexxy-sig.jpg
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    Yogo wrote: »
    EU airlines are required by EU rules to compensate passengers in any way short of carrying themselves to the airport. If you are stranded in your tourist location (point B), the airline is responsible for your temporary accommodation including stay (at hotel or the like) and meals.

    This seems unfair to the airlines in situations where the reason for the delay is beyond their control, such as this one, as opposed to ones within their control like overbooking. However, I'm sure the airlines have all already included whatever that extra cost would be into the price of their tickets, so it balances out.

    The other way around makes it unfair to the consumer who is stuck in a foreign country.

    So then you have to decide who gets the short end of the stick on these rare occasions. Steve, or the industry with hundreds of millions of dollars.

    Steve pays either way, whether directly to the hotel or indirectly through higher plane ticket prices so the airline can pay the hotel on Steve's behalf.

    Once again: prices are based on market forces. Prices won't go up unless buyers are willing to pay more.
    Every passenger is already paying more to fill whatever fund the airline has to cover costs when passengers are delayed. The airlines have actuaries and accountants for just this sort of thing. It's basically layover insurance.

    With car insurance you pay in all those months you don't wreck your car, then when you do insurance pays you back out of the fund created by all the money paid in by customers during non-wreck months. With the airlines' "layover insurance" the passengers pay in during all those flights when a flight isn't delayed, and then when a flight is delayed the airline uses that fund to cover hotel costs.

    Airlines aren't just going to eat the cost of hotel stays out of pocket, any more than they would be willing to eat the cost when the price of jet fuel goes up. If volcanoes keep erupting and the airlines have to keep paying for people's hotels, they'll pass it on to the customer through higher prices, just as they do with fuel.

    But if they raise the price, fewer people will buy tickets, thereby cutting airline profits even more.

    It probably won't even come down to it, as the volcano seems a pretty unique case. But there are plenty of ways to pass on the costs to customers without raising base ticket prices. They can hide extra surcharges and fees behind a wall of indecipherable acronyms. Telecoms love to do this with phone bills, and then charge extra for "Itemized/Detailed Statements."

    Airlines today charge for bags, peanuts, meals, headphones, pillows, cards, practically everything you use on a plane besides the oxygen. That used to all be free. RyanAir is implementing pay toilets. Spirit Airlines is charging for carry-ons placed in overhead compartments, with an additional fee if you don't call ahead to RSVP your carry-on.

    BubbaT on
  • AegisAegis Fear My Dance Overshot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Hamurabi wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    If they're not refunding ticket prices, how are they losing 200 Million per day?

    Honest question, I just don't get the math. That's a lot of fucking money considering they aren't burning any fuel if the planes aren't in the air.

    They could just be referring to lost revenue, as a result of people not buying tickets because they know no flights are being operated. Similar to how the MPAA claims lost revenue from pirated movies based on theoretical customers not buying movie tickets.

    I don't know whether or not you're saying the airlines' figure is bologna like the MPAA's, but I assume the $200 million figure is in fact the money they would've made if everything was normal right now. And that's (probably) gross revenue -- not profit.

    Yea, comparing it to the MPAA isn't all that correct. The airlines are going to budget their expected revenues on a baseline number of flights. If those flights aren't running, then they're losing tangible money they'd have expected to make were the situation normal and moreover, their expenses and budgeting all depend on making (roughly) their expected revenues for a given period of time.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Aegis wrote: »
    Hamurabi wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    If they're not refunding ticket prices, how are they losing 200 Million per day?

    Honest question, I just don't get the math. That's a lot of fucking money considering they aren't burning any fuel if the planes aren't in the air.

    They could just be referring to lost revenue, as a result of people not buying tickets because they know no flights are being operated. Similar to how the MPAA claims lost revenue from pirated movies based on theoretical customers not buying movie tickets.

    I don't know whether or not you're saying the airlines' figure is bologna like the MPAA's, but I assume the $200 million figure is in fact the money they would've made if everything was normal right now. And that's (probably) gross revenue -- not profit.

    Yea, comparing it to the MPAA isn't all that correct. The airlines are going to budget their expected revenues on a baseline number of flights. If those flights aren't running, then they're losing tangible money they'd have expected to make were the situation normal and moreover, their expenses and budgeting all depend on making (roughly) their expected revenues for a given period of time.

    In that case I'd like to see where this $200M figure is coming from as well, because
    Airlines worldwide are losing at least $200 million a day in revenue as a volcanic ash cloud over Europe keeps flights grounded, the International Air Transport Association said.

    The estimate is conservative and doesn’t include costs to reroute aircraft, care for stranded passengers or have planes stuck at various airports, the Montreal-based trade group said today in a statement.

    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-16/airlines-revenue-loss-from-ash-200-million-a-day-group-says.html

    We're also operating under the assumption that ticket prices are not being refunded. If they keep the ticket money, how are they losing money by not flying? I would think the ticket purchases would be their main source of revenues. Do they sell $200M worth of peanuts?

    BubbaT on
  • adytumadytum The Inevitable Rise And FallRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    How about the cost to lease their equipment, which most airlines do?

    adytum on
  • AegisAegis Fear My Dance Overshot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Err, we already explained, it's the lost revenue from the expected number of flights that would have been made were the airlines operational, based upon the traditional amount of flights at this period of the year adjusted for current economic/seasonal conditions. You budget you'll make X number of flights in a year, which can be broken down into monthly/weekly/daily # of flights, which are no longer occurring because the flights are prevented from operating. The estimate could be not entirely accurate, but it's not necessarily a figure that's hard to calculate.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Aegis wrote: »
    Err, we already explained, it's the lost revenue from the expected number of flights that would have been made were the airlines operational, based upon the traditional amount of flights at this period of the year adjusted for current economic/seasonal conditions. You budget you'll make X number of flights in a year, which can be broken down into monthly/weekly/daily # of flights, which are no longer occurring because the flights are prevented from operating. The estimate could be not entirely accurate, but it's not necessarily a figure that's hard to calculate.

    The assumption in amateurhour's initial post was that the airlines weren't refunding the ticket prices for those cancelled flights. I would think ticket revenues make up the bulk of airlines' overall revenues, but please correct me if I'm incorrect. At any rate the airlines, under that initial assumption, would still have that ticket revenue whether the planes are flying or not.

    Additional non-ticket revenues that would be lost from canceling flights would be in the form of other on-site charges, such as customers buying meals, drinks, etc., or paying luggage fees and whatnot. Also added to that would be tickets purchased by late-booking passengers. These revenues amount to $200M a day?

    Now if the initial assumption is wrong, and the airlines are indeed refunding ticket prices, then I could easily see revenues falling by $200M a day. Likely much more than $200M, since in that case the airlines are basically generating $0 revenue.

    BubbaT on
  • AegisAegis Fear My Dance Overshot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Well even if they weren't refunding the flights (which I don't see any indication that they aren't, otherwise I'm fairly sure it would have hit the news by now [and [BBC isn't including any mention of such], my interpretation of the OP is asking whether there should be compensation above and beyond refunding) that were already cancelled, this would only be a one-time charge for those flights already considered or those too late to change . For those flights that would have been booked during the length of the outage people now can't purchase tickets and the airlines are losing any business that would have normally been generated.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • AegisAegis Fear My Dance Overshot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Oh, thank you CBC broadcast right now. Apparently European airliners are by law required to provide room and board for passengers delayed by flights, in addition to airlines normal willingness to reschedule flights.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    All I know is, if I wasn't given a new flight or a refund, I'd never use that company ever again. I don't care if Jesus came down from the sky and blew up your plains with his lazer beams, you owe me a good chunk of money for a flight I never got to take for reasons completely outside of my control.

    Zombiemambo on
    JKKaAGp.png
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    BubbaT wrote: »
    Steve pays either way, whether directly to the hotel or indirectly through higher plane ticket prices so the airline can pay the hotel on Steve's behalf.

    This is assuming he flies again and if he flies enough that the price raise ends up equaling the ticket he bought and was, again, never rendered services for.

    Quid on
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    So they're estimating they're essentially losing 200 million ? But, in reality, they're not losing anything, they're just not making anything (not nearly the same). I'd imagine their losses per day are much smaller than that.

    bowen on
    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • Alistair HuttonAlistair Hutton Dr EdinburghRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »

    They could just start buying passengers train tickets.

    TGV first class was pretty fucking sweet up from the south east of France to Lillie before connecting with EuroStar. Unfortunately a French rail strike meant we had to go 5 days later than we wanted.

    Alistair Hutton on
    I have a thoughtful and infrequently updated blog about games http://whatithinkaboutwhenithinkaboutgames.wordpress.com/

    I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.

    Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    Steve pays either way, whether directly to the hotel or indirectly through higher plane ticket prices so the airline can pay the hotel on Steve's behalf.

    This is assuming he flies again and if he flies enough that the price raise ends up equaling the ticket he bought and was, again, never rendered services for.

    If the original Steve doesn't fly again the other Steves who do fly will end up paying it. Just like if you pay car insurance each month but never get into a crash, you're still paying for the people who do.

    BubbaT on
  • HamurabiHamurabi MiamiRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    bowen wrote: »
    So they're estimating they're essentially losing 200 million ? But, in reality, they're not losing anything, they're just not making anything (not nearly the same). I'd imagine their losses per day are much smaller than that.

    In business, this is the same thing. All their budgets are predicated upon making a minimum of X dollars per day.

    Hamurabi on
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I often find businesses don't live in reality half the time.

    bowen on
    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • Darkchampion3dDarkchampion3d Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    bowen wrote: »
    So they're estimating they're essentially losing 200 million ? But, in reality, they're not losing anything, they're just not making anything (not nearly the same). I'd imagine their losses per day are much smaller than that.

    Not making anything while paying a large workforce to maintain, fly, and service a fleet of extremely expensive aircraft is very costly. Losing revenue because they can't fly is losing money.

    The figures are almost inevitably inflated though, most likely on purpose so they can beg for more govt aid (which they will).

    Darkchampion3d on
    Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    No, definitely not. The airlines should compensate people when they screw up, not when stuff beyond their control screws them up.

    Professor Phobos on
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Right, but it seems their figure is based off of invisible statistics. Granted they're basing budgets off that, but still, they're not losing the money because they didn't fly today. They just, didn't make it. But to them, it's one in the same and for all intents and purposes, it's the same. It just irked me a bit.

    bowen on
    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    No, definitely not. The airlines should compensate people when they screw up, not when stuff beyond their control screws them up.

    ^ This. I see no reason for compensation when something the airline can't control screws them up. Ticket refunds are a necessity I would say though.

    electricitylikesme on
  • HamurabiHamurabi MiamiRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    bowen wrote: »
    Right, but it seems their figure is based off of invisible statistics. Granted they're basing budgets off that, but still, they're not losing the money because they didn't fly today. They just, didn't make it. But to them, it's one in the same and for all intents and purposes, it's the same. It just irked me a bit.

    If the last three years have proven anything, it's that invisible numbers matter just as much, if not more, than the real ones.

    Hamurabi on
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2010
    Airlines should offer refunds on tickets and allow people to rebook for free.

    I don't see how that's controversial. They offered a service for $X. Due to circumstances out of their control, they were unable to provide that service.

    Let's put it another way: you hire a guy to mow your lawn for $20. There's an earthquake with widespread service disruption and he's unable to get over there to do it. Do you still owe him $20? Fuck no.

    I don't see them as liable for anything more than the price of the ticket, though.

    Doc on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    BubbaT wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    Steve pays either way, whether directly to the hotel or indirectly through higher plane ticket prices so the airline can pay the hotel on Steve's behalf.

    This is assuming he flies again and if he flies enough that the price raise ends up equaling the ticket he bought and was, again, never rendered services for.

    If the original Steve doesn't fly again the other Steves who do fly will end up paying it. Just like if you pay car insurance each month but never get into a crash, you're still paying for the people who do.

    As opposed to not paying it and risking shelling out far more than you can afford because of one screw up.

    So... kind of proved my point there.

    Quid on
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    It's worth pointing out that the EU regulations on airline's responsibilities towards stranded travellers makes travel insurance cheaper, because the most common claims (food and board while stranded) aren't their problem.

    That, coupled with the fact that there are reciprocal agreements for medical costs across the EU is the reason why travel insurance for within Europe is typically a few pounds, whereas travel insurance covering the US or other areas is holy balls expensive.

    japan on
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Hamurabi wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Right, but it seems their figure is based off of invisible statistics. Granted they're basing budgets off that, but still, they're not losing the money because they didn't fly today. They just, didn't make it. But to them, it's one in the same and for all intents and purposes, it's the same. It just irked me a bit.

    If the last three years have proven anything, it's that invisible numbers matter just as much, if not more, than the real ones.

    True, but when your investments and payouts are based off of superfluous numbers with absolutely no backing (or fake backing), that's a different problem entirely.

    bowen on
    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • HamurabiHamurabi MiamiRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    bowen wrote: »
    Hamurabi wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Right, but it seems their figure is based off of invisible statistics. Granted they're basing budgets off that, but still, they're not losing the money because they didn't fly today. They just, didn't make it. But to them, it's one in the same and for all intents and purposes, it's the same. It just irked me a bit.

    If the last three years have proven anything, it's that invisible numbers matter just as much, if not more, than the real ones.

    True, but when your investments and payouts are based off of superfluous numbers with absolutely no backing (or fake backing), that's a different problem entirely.

    I know. I was just being cheeky. :P

    So most flights seem to have gone back to normal today.
    • Willing to reimburse passengers the original ticket price only.
    • Charging passengers the difference if the airline had to put them on a more expensive flight.
    • "Don't blame us -- the EU made us stop flying."
    • Spokesman: "We didn't ask for a bailout [when the American auto and airline industry got one], and we didn't receive one. But these are extraordinary circumstances."
    • Claim they've lost $1.2 billion overall

    Hamurabi on
  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    If they had flown and crashed, what would the payout be and who would have done it?

    Tastyfish on
  • HamurabiHamurabi MiamiRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    If they had flown and crashed, what would the payout be and who would have done it?

    This is what I don't get.

    So you're losing $200 million a day? How is that at all relevant? If the EU lets you fly, there are two scenarios that play out:

    A. You make your flights but with almost guaranteed engine damage, costing millions to repair.

    B. One or more of your flights crash for the exact reason the EU wasn't letting you fly, it's an international disaster and you face both a PR and a financial catastrophe because now you're the airlines who flew when everyone was telling you not to, and because you killed hundreds of innocent travelers doing so.

    In any rational risk assessment, they just don't stand to gain either way, I feel like. They did conduct those test flights of their own, and I think they only succeeded because they flew some crazy roundabout patterns and at weird altitudes. And that assumes the results themselves were 100% legit.

    EDIT: A British reporter put it most succinctly: "We'd much rather be on the ground wishing we were in the air than in the air wishing we were on the ground."

    Hamurabi on
  • fleggettfleggett Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I don't want to draw itty-bitty lines in the sand, but there's a practical/humanitarian side to all this that should be addressed. Despite what some may think, vacationers aren't bottomless pits of cash and being stranded for a week or longer can have dire fiscal and, by consequence, physical consequences. This is (partly) why you see people camped out in airport terminals instead of being snug in hotel or motel rooms. And while you might level a finger at these people and say that they should've brought along some extra cash for emergencies, no one in their right mind flies to Europe for a week's holiday with the expectation that they might get stranded for a couple weeks while a powerful volcano blows its top.

    Some charity and mercy should come into play. I realize we're talking about a LOT of affected people, but that makes it even more imperative. If the airlines can play a part in alleviating stranded travelers, I think they should short of going bankrupt in the process.

    I don't think anyone is advocating that the airlines toss the dice and start flying through pyroclastic clouds to get these people home. Crashes involving commercial aircraft have happened before that've been attributed to volcanic eruptions clogging engine intakes, so the worry is very real. However, leaving these people to their own devices when they might be mentally and physically exhausted and tapped-out financially is pretty freakin' cruel.

    Now, I'm a realist and I know the airlines will seek to balance the scales (and try to tip it to their favor) when this crisis is over by raising existing fees, creating new fees, and hiking ticket prices. I'm just commenting on the situation >now< and how I think these people should be treated.

    fleggett on
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    The governments should really be stepping up and taking care of it.

    That means if it's an American citizen the US government should be stepping in and providing aide for them. Hell even if the country they're stranded in did it that'd be great. I can't see a few thousand stranded tourists breaking a fiscal budget for a government.

    bowen on
    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • amateurhouramateurhour One day I'll be professionalhour The woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    bowen wrote: »
    The governments should really be stepping up and taking care of it.

    That means if it's an American citizen the US government should be stepping in and providing aide for them. Hell even if the country they're stranded in did it that'd be great. I can't see a few thousand stranded tourists breaking a fiscal budget for a government.

    Yeah, I'm curious if the American embassies are giving lodging to people who can't afford to stay (safely) wherever they are.

    I mean let's say I was on vacation in Rome or something for my honeymoon. I know that I would have budgeted that trip, and can't afford to stay there for another two weeks paying for some nice hotel.

    Is the embassy going to give me a room to sleep in?

    amateurhour on
    are YOU on the beer list?
  • CidonaBoyCidonaBoy Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Hamurabi wrote: »
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    If they had flown and crashed, what would the payout be and who would have done it?

    This is what I don't get.

    So you're losing $200 million a day? How is that at all relevant? If the EU lets you fly, there are two scenarios that play out:

    A. You make your flights but with almost guaranteed engine damage, costing millions to repair.

    I don't know much about planes, but some airlines like Aer Arann use planes with propellers (Link).

    Wasn't the problem with the ash that it was at the altitudes that jet engines are used at? Or would it have affected planes like these also that can operate at low altitudes? I recall seeing the director of Aer Arann on TV saying his fleet would not have had any issues flying, though admittedly this could have been all talk knowing they would never be allowed fly.

    CidonaBoy on
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    bowen wrote: »
    The governments should really be stepping up and taking care of it.

    That means if it's an American citizen the US government should be stepping in and providing aide for them. Hell even if the country they're stranded in did it that'd be great. I can't see a few thousand stranded tourists breaking a fiscal budget for a government.

    Yeah, I'm curious if the American embassies are giving lodging to people who can't afford to stay (safely) wherever they are.

    I mean let's say I was on vacation in Rome or something for my honeymoon. I know that I would have budgeted that trip, and can't afford to stay there for another two weeks paying for some nice hotel.

    Is the embassy going to give me a room to sleep in?
    No. The only time you can really expect your government to step in is to evacuate you from a dangerous situation, like a war of whatever. The US government isn't really a babysitter for people whose travel plans get screwed up. Thems the breaks.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    No, but you also have citizens stranded out of country with no money. That's a terrible situation to be in. That's not exactly babysitting. Babysitting is bailing your citizens out of international jail cells and shipping them back to the US, free of charge.

    bowen on
    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    So, Ryanair and BMI have backed down on their statements that they won't accommodate and feed their stranded passengers now that it has been pointed out that not to do so is illegal.

    Jet2 are apparently sticking by their "any compensation is limited to the cost of the ticket" line, so it'll be interesting to see how that plays out.

    japan on
  • Curly_BraceCurly_Brace Robot Girl Mimiga VillageRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    fleggett wrote: »

    Some charity and mercy should come into play. I realize we're talking about a LOT of affected people, but that makes it even more imperative. If the airlines can play a part in alleviating stranded travelers, I think they should short of going bankrupt in the process.

    I've been given a free room for a flight that was delayed due to bad weather... and in the case of bad weather airlines probably plan on comping various fees for all the passengers coming in/out of Airport XYZ due to bad weather... but this is an ENTIRE CONTINENT worth of cancellations... and considering they hemorrhage money when planes are on the ground anyways, I'm pretty sure any sort of mass-compensation would ruin many airlines.

    I suppose governments should plan ahead for this sort of thing; set up funds for emergency shelter and food in case of a large, odd natural event like a volcanic eruption. Unless of course you're John McCain and you think volcano monitoring is silly.

    Curly_Brace on
  • AegisAegis Fear My Dance Overshot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    japan wrote: »
    So, Ryanair and BMI have backed down on their statements that they won't accommodate and feed their stranded passengers now that it has been pointed out that not to do so is illegal.

    Jet2 are apparently sticking by their "any compensation is limited to the cost of the ticket" line, so it'll be interesting to see how that plays out.
    "While competitor ferry, coach and train operators are obliged to reimburse passengers' reasonable expenses, this reimbursement is limited to the ticket price paid to those operators.

    "Yet the airlines are required by regulation to meet potentially unlimited expenses, in circumstances where there has been a catastrophic closure of European airspace over the past seven days, as EU governments and regulators wrongly applied a blanket ban on flights over European airspace.

    "We will continue to work through the European Low Fares Airlines Association (ELFAA) and other industry bodies to persuade the European Commission and the European Parliament to alter this regulation to put this reasonable limit on these reimbursement claims."

    You know, call me crazy, but I don't see ferries, trains, and (what's a coach? bus?) resulting in passengers being stranded in an otherwise unfamiliar country, let alone city. Somehow, room and board until the flights can operate again to me falls under reasonable expenses.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Aegis wrote: »
    You know, call me crazy, but I don't see ferries, trains, and (what's a coach? bus?) resulting in passengers being stranded in an otherwise unfamiliar country, let alone city. Somehow, room and board until the flights can operate again to me falls under reasonable expenses.

    Coaches are a type of bus.

    Ferries and trains absolutely can strand people in foreign countries. There are ferry services from UK ports to Ireland, France, Spain, Portugal, The Netherlands, Belgium, and there was one to Norway but I don't think that runs anymore. Equally trains run from the UK across the entirety of Europe.

    I do think they're slightly more resilient to disruption than air travel, however. Eurostar suspended it's service to Belgium for about a week just before Christmas, but it was still possible to get back to the UK by using a different route.

    japan on
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2010
    CidonaBoy wrote: »
    Hamurabi wrote: »
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    If they had flown and crashed, what would the payout be and who would have done it?

    This is what I don't get.

    So you're losing $200 million a day? How is that at all relevant? If the EU lets you fly, there are two scenarios that play out:

    A. You make your flights but with almost guaranteed engine damage, costing millions to repair.

    I don't know much about planes, but some airlines like Aer Arann use planes with propellers (Link).

    Wasn't the problem with the ash that it was at the altitudes that jet engines are used at? Or would it have affected planes like these also that can operate at low altitudes? I recall seeing the director of Aer Arann on TV saying his fleet would not have had any issues flying, though admittedly this could have been all talk knowing they would never be allowed fly.

    Volcanic ash can also scratch cockpit windows opaque.

    Doc on
Sign In or Register to comment.