Showing posts with label airline passenger rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label airline passenger rights. Show all posts

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Comtel Air Forces Passengers to Pay More On Board in Order to Continue to Destination

Hundreds of passengers were stranded for six hours in Vienna on a flight from India to Britain when a Comtel Air flight stopped for fuel on November 15. The chartered plane demanded passengers pay a collective 20,000 GBP (about $31,000) in order to pay for fuel, airport costs, and other unexplained costs in order to continue on to Birmingham, U.K.

For passengers that didn't have enough cash on board, the flight operators were nice enough to make them get off the aircraft, go inside to visit an ATM, and re-board the plane in order to contribute money. Children under two were free, so I guess that is nice of them.



It seems curious why the flight crew would need to collect so much cash from passengers after the flight had already begun it's journey. I didn't know that pilots delivered a briefcase of non-sequential, unmarked bills to the airport before take-off could ensue, but I suppose you do learn something new every day.

According to AP, "Bhupinder Kandra, the airline's majority shareholder, told the Associated Press from Vienna that travel agents had taken the passengers' money before the planes left but had not passed it on to the airline."

It will be interesting to keep an eye on what the consequences- if there are any- of these actions (and the other related incidents that can be found in the article below) are.

View the video captured on the aircraft and read more here:
http://news.yahoo.com/airline-passengers-asked-extra-cash-fuel-115831926.html

Friday, September 23, 2011

TSA Blocks Private Parts Image Blockers! Uber Intrusive Pat Downs Ensue.

Interested in becoming a lewd flasher? Head to your nearest airport! It's practically mandatory! These days it almost seems like going to the airport should be reserved for those with a Sadomasochism fetish because no matter what passengers do, they cannot seem to avoid being forcibly humiliated by TSA agents.

These pat downs and nude imaging machines have coupled to create an absurd safety procedure that has placed the comfort- and dignity -of American travelers on the back burner and moved what to the front? (ALERT!: possibly offensive language set to que in 3...2...1...) Women's camel toe (men of course being exempt from this particular invasion because of anatomical differences- but don't think other areas of men's bodies are safe, including areas that most men probably aren't happy about being prodded even by their doctors when they are in their mid-fifties getting screened for prostate cancer, let alone a random TSA agent who has probably done the same thing 38 times on his/ her shift already and only taken one bathroom break, where he/she hopefully washed his or her hands).

But ah! A solution, perhaps? Companies like
http://scannershirts.com/ offer products that place an image like the presidential seal or stars or other freedom-promoting American symbols (declaring that the areas attempting to be peeped upon are for select eyes only) over passengers' private parts.

However, don't just rush to the website all at once and crash their server- the TSA does not allow passengers to wear these items- unless you are willing to be subject to an IN-DEPTH (wink) pat down/ grope session.

For more on this (and with a bit more gruesome detail) see this from the Guardian by Jennifer Abel:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/20/figleaf-tsa-intrusion

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

ATA is Anti Pilot Fatigue Law (Job Loss) and Airlines are Anti DOT Fare Regulations (Unfair)

Pilot Fatigue Law:

Although there was a lot of controversy over the delay of the pilot fatigue law, one group that is not complaining is the Air Transport Administration. The ATA says that if the Obama administration were to pass the new pilot fatigue regulations it could cost $2 billion a year over time and 27,000 jobs tied to the industry. The thinking is that airlines would be unable to raise fares drastically enough to cover the increased manpower, forcing them to cut capacity and ground crew jobs. These cuts would probably affect small markets and communities most significantly.

From:http://www.smartmeetings.com/magazine/article/headline/pilot-fatigue-laws-could-cost-jobs

For more info see: http://www.airlines.org/pages/home.aspx


DOT Fare Regulation:

Airlines are opposing the U.S Transportation Department’s new passenger bill of rights,and specifically the measure that requires airlines to clearly state all fees and taxes in any fare advertisement. Airlines are equating the reporting requirements to those that are mandatory in government-regulated industries, which they say is unfair because they have been deregulated for more than 30 years. They are also saying that no other consumer industry endures the same scrutiny or mandatory reporting regulations.

From:http://www.smartmeetings.com/magazine/article/headline/airlines-oppose-dot-fare-regulations

For more info see: http://www.dot.gov/

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Russian carrier makes 6 passengers stand for 5-hour flight

Oct 05, 2010
A Russian airline forced six passengers to stand on a five-hour flight from Turkey to Russia, according to media reports.

Daily Mail reported that six adults had no seats on the overcrowded Boeing jet as it took off from Antalya airport in Turkey, used by thousands of Britons each week.

These passengers did not have oxygen masks or life vests on the overcrowded jet, said reports in Moscow.

According to Daily Mail, the passengers on the Tatarstan Airlines flight from Antalya to Ekaterinburg, Russia’s fourth largest city, were told an aircraft with 148 seats had been replaced at the last minute by another Boeing 737 with space for only 142.

Those who complained were told by the crew to put a child on their lap - but the children were far too big.

The incident on Septmber 24 came to light after angry passengers demanded £3,000 each in compensation.

The tour company which booked their flight offered them only £130.

"The adults had no choice but to fly standing for five hours," said one passenger.

"When the plane flew through turbulence, they went from standing to sitting in the aisle, where naturally they had no safety belts."

A Tatarstan Airlines official said last night: "We cannot deny this happened to our customers. But the company will not share any details until everything is clarified. Our own investigation of this accident is about to begin."

Evgenia Fedorova, a manager of Anex-Tour, which booked many passengers on the flight, said, "People had a choice - to fly on that plane standing up or wait seven hours for another plane.

"All the tourists decided to fly back despite uncomfortable conditions."

Aviation regulators are understood to be probing the incident.

Dubai airline refuses to fly blind passenger

Oct 05, 2010
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Dubai's FlyDubai airline refused to allow blind American passenger to fly because of his disability.

According to the Associated Press, Zuhair Mahmoud says he was told by FlyDubai airline staff members that the carrier's policies did not allow blind travelers to fly unless accompanied by someone else.

The airline's chief executive said in an e-mail to AP on Tuesday that the incident never should have happened and that the airline doesn't discriminate against passengers with special needs. CEO Ghaith al-Ghaith says the airline plans a full investigation and is sorry for the incident.

AP reports that the 37-year-old Mahmoud, of Arlington, Virginia, is staying with family in Dubai until he can catch another flight out to Jordan before heading back to the U.S.

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Southwest Airlines: God now has a hand in carrier's mechanical problems

I think this article has GREAT importance for all of us to be aware of
_________________________________________________________________


If there's a God who controls floods and earthquakes, does the deity also have a hand in an airline's mechanical problems?

Apparently so, according to Tucson's most popular airline, which recently added "mechanical difficulties" to the list of acts of God and other events for which the carrier will not be liable if travel is delayed.

Southwest Airlines quietly made the change a few weeks ago, to the puzzlement of some industry analysts.

It appears on page 11 of 32 pages of fine print called a "contract of carriage," which many passengers don't read, but which spells out their recourse in mishaps such as flight interruptions or baggage loss.

Mechanical difficulties - what type is not defined - now appears on a list of events such as wars, riots, storms, earthquakes and other acts of God that are "outside of (Southwest's) control."

In such cases, the contract says, passengers are entitled to refunds only on the used portion of their tickets. Southwest has no obligation to provide compensation for "any type of special, incidential or consequential damages."

Southwest spokesman Chris Mainz downplayed the significance of the change.

Mainz said Southwest would continue to assist passengers just as in the past, for example by putting them up in hotels if they are stranded during travel.

Asked why Southwest would change its contract if it doesn't intend to change its practices, Mainz said in an e-mail that the modification was made to "limit our exposure to liability."

Mainz also said the change would make Southwest "more consistent with the industry standard." However, when the Arizona Daily Star reviewed passenger contracts for four other major airlines - Delta, American, Continental and United - none included "mechanical difficulties" as an event outside the carrier's control.

Robert Mann, an airline industry analyst based in Port Washington, N.Y., called it "surprising" that Southwest, which has a reputation for stellar customer service, would make a change that puts passengers at a legal disadvantage if an aircraft breakdown delays their travel.

Keeping a fleet mechanically sound "is certainly within the control of any airline," Mann said. "Putting mechanical issues in the same category as an act of God - I don't think that's what God intended."

Even if Southwest sticks to its current level of customer aid, Mann said, the new contract wording sets a bad industry precedent.

"While I take Southwest at their word to do the right thing for customers, there are others in the industry who will adopt this on a 'me, too' basis and hold to the letter of that language, really disadvantaging customers on an issue that is absolutely within a carrier's responsibility and control."

Industry analyst Michael Boyd of Evergreen, Colo., agreed other airlines are likely to follow suit.

"The way the industry is today, airlines are sitting around watching each other," he said. "If the other guy does something that makes money and the consumer doesn't revolt, they're going to do it, too."

"I can see (carriers) saying, 'It wasn't our fault the airplane broke down,' and I also can see customers saying, 'I bought a ticket from you and I have reasonable expectation that the airplane is going to work,' " Mann said.

Southwest is the top choice of passengers at Tucson International Airport, used by nearly a third of the 3.6 million travelers who flew into or out of TIA last year.


By Carol Ann Alaimo Jul 25, 2010

Thursday, July 15, 2010

What American traveler's dont know

Practical Traveler
Delayed? They’ll Put You Up
By SUSAN STELLIN
Published: July 12, 2010

When Keith Brown was stranded in Florida in April because of the volcanic ash cloud that closed European airports, he spent a week at the Westin Lake Mary near Orlando before flying home to England. But the extended holiday was not a financial burden — his airline, the British charter Thomson Airways, paid for his meals and hotel.

That’s not exactly the kind of treatment most American travelers would expect when a flight is canceled. But unlike the United States, where airlines make their own rules on how passengers are compensated when flights are delayed or canceled, the European Union requires airlines to pay penalties of up to 600 euros, or about $750, when the problem is the carrier’s fault, and cover hotel rooms and meals even when it is not.

The law, EC 261, in effect since 2005, applies to any European Union airline flying to or from a member state. But here’s a detail that American carriers would prefer their customers not know: it applies to all flights departing from the European Union, regardless of the passengers’ nationality.

That means travelers flying on American, Delta, Continental, United and US Airways from Europe to anywhere else in the world are covered by the European Union’s passenger rights laws — a fact that representatives from those airlines (except United) reluctantly confirmed, after multiple phone calls and e-mail messages.

Only Delta and American said that they have actually paid claims related to EC 261. Continental and US Airways declined to answer. United referred questions to the Air Transport Association, the trade group representing American carriers.

So the following advice comes with an important caveat: although the Transportation Department, the Air Transport Association, the European Commission and even the State Department say these rules apply to American carriers, it is not clear how willingly airlines actually pay compensation, and how effectively the rule can be enforced. Still, it is worth knowing the law and trying to pursue a claim if you are on a flight from Europe that is canceled or delayed. If you are flying on a European carrier, you’re covered both ways — something to consider the next time you book a flight to Europe.

International Flights: A Look at the Rules

Even within Europe, many people do not know about these passenger rights rules, so the European Commission recently started a publicity campaign to educate travelers about the law.

“If passengers get to the airport and something happens — a flight is delayed or canceled — they may not know what to do if they don’t fly a lot,” said Dale Kidd, a spokesman for the European Commission. “We want to ensure that travel remains a pleasant experience, because sometimes airline travel can be a bit stressful.”

The rules themselves are fairly simple. When a flight is canceled, regardless of the cause, a passenger can choose to get a refund for the unused portion of the ticket or be rerouted on another flight. If this results in an overnight stay, the airline has to pay for a hotel, meals and transportation between the hotel and the airport, even if the cancellation is due to weather or any other factor outside the airline’s control.

If the cancellation is considered within the airline’s control —such as when the plane has mechanical problems — the carrier must also pay each passenger between 125 and 600 euros, depending on the length of the flight and the delay.

For example, if you’re on a flight from Paris to New York that is canceled because of engine trouble and you’re put on another flight that lands more than four hours after your original arrival time, your compensation would be 600 euros.

Delays don’t generally qualify for financial penalties, but if you get stuck overnight — regardless of the reason — the airline has to pay for meals and a hotel. Even for some shorter delays, the carrier has to pay for meals, depending on the length of the flight and how long you’re delayed.

How to Pursue a Claim

Theoretically, airline employees should offer compensation and arrange for accommodations at the time a flight is canceled, but you can also submit a claim later if this doesn’t happen. Many European carriers have instructions on how to do this on their Web sites. British Airways, KLM and Virgin Atlantic all have clear explanations about EC 261 on their Web sites — including instructions on filing a claim.

None of the American carriers I contacted would say how passengers should go about filing a claim, but Mr. Kidd of the European Commission said: “The first place a passenger who wants to make a claim should go is the airline itself — the airlines know this.”

Since the regulation is enforced by government bodies in each member state (not by the European Commission), Mr. Kidd said that if the problem occurred on a European carrier, and the airline itself was not responsive, passengers should contact the enforcement body in the European country where the airline is based. These groups are listed on the commission’s passenger rights Web site, apr.europa.eu, and on some carriers’ sites.

“If it’s an E.U. airline, they’re bound to respect the law so you have recourse as a passenger,” Mr. Kidd said. “The majority of carriers are doing their best to comply.”

That has not always been the case, and a recent report ordered by the European Commission found that there are still problems with carriers’ avoiding paying claims.

Seeking compensation is especially challenging for passengers flying non-European airlines, since there are no enforcement agencies outside the European Union, including in the United States, although travelers can also try contacting the enforcement group in the country where the incident happened.

The Question of Compliance

Steve Lott, a spokesman for the International Air Transport Association, a trade group, said EC 261 has been a source of contention since it was adopted, and that carriers mostly object to the law for penalizing them for things outside of their control — especially the volcano eruption, which the group estimated cost the airline industry nearly $2 billion in lost revenue and compensation paid to passengers.

“There have been cases when somebody has paid $250 for their ticket but they’re getting $400 back in compensation,” he said, adding that the murky enforcement of the law as it applies to non-European carriers creates another point of friction.

“It’s not a level playing field,” Mr. Lott said. Because this issue gets into complex areas of international law, there are no easy answers.

“As a legal matter, we don’t challenge the authority of the European Union to regulate air transportation emanating from its territory,” said John Byerly, the deputy assistant secretary for transportation affairs at the State Department, who is involved in negotiating aviation treaties.

Although Mr. Byerly confirmed that Europe’s passenger rights regulations apply to American carriers leaving Europe, he conceded that there is no body that enforces them in the United States, creating a gap that has yet to be addressed.

“One of the areas you’ll find us talking about in the future is in the area of consumer protection,” he said.

Sunday, June 6, 2010

Bumped fliers could see higher compensation

By Dan Reed, USA TODAY
UPDATE: DOT proposes airlines pay bumped passengers up to $1,300

The compensation for getting bumped from your airline seat could be going up soon.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood plans to announce today a proposed "inflation adjustment" for passengers who are bumped off flights, along with other proposals aimed at protecting airline consumers.

Currently, most bumped passengers who reach their destination less than two hours later than originally planned get $400 in cash. Those who are delayed longer get $800.

The Transportation Department wouldn't discuss details of LaHood's proposals pending his announcement. But over the years, some travel consumer advocates have suggested that the compensation limits be pushed to $800 and $1,200, respectively. After inflation, that's roughly equal to the $200 and $400 compensation levels set in 1978, when the government first began regulating the practice of "overbooking."

Thirty years ago, when most airline tickets were fully refundable, no-shows were a big problem for airlines. Today, however, a majority of tickets are deeply discounted and are non-refundable, so the problem of no-shows is greatly diminished.

Still, a small percentage of travelers — mostly business people whose higher-priced tickets are fully refundable — don't show up for their flights. As a result, most airlines continue to sell a few more tickets for a flight than there are seats on a plane.

Airlines use computer programs to predict how many no-shows there'll be for a given flight. And they've gotten good at it. Last year, there were only 13 passengers bumped out of every 10,000 domestic passenger boardings. Historically, that number had been more than 20 per 10,000.

"It's getting to be a smaller and smaller problem all the time, thanks to the more sophisticated revenue-management systems," says Bill Swelbar, research engineer at MIT's International Center for Air Transportation.

Still, 762,422 passengers were bumped from domestic flights in 2009. Of that number, 69,234 involuntarily gave up their seats, according to the Transportation Department's Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Statistically, those are very small numbers. But for passengers who are bumped involuntarily, the experience often means great disruption to personal or professional lives.

And it's getting harder to get seats on later flights. In response to the recession, high oil prices and $60 billion in losses since 2000, airlines have trimmed the seats they make available on domestic routes by about 10.5% from 2008

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Airline passenger rights (tarmac delay) legislation

Now that this legislation is in place from the Department of Transportation.... the airlines response is clear! You wanted it, you got it. Be careful what you ask for.....
The airlines have cancelled hundreds of flights due to weather and storms in fear of big fines (about $4.4 million for a fully loaded flight). They fear pushing back, getting in line to clear a take off, maybe the arrival airports have reduced arrivals and spaced more.... and then not being cleared in the time frame allowed before a fine. So, not to take the chance and to save labor, they just cancel the flight! This practice will only increase.
The passenger rights bill was intended to limit delays without being allowed to disembark, provide water and restrooms. It's realized function will frustration to accommodate cancelled and waiting days (maybe) to get to your destination.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Airline passenger rights bill passed

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) yesterday issued a new rule that significantly strengthens protections afforded to airline passengers, including the establishment of a three-hour time limit after which U.S. airlines must allow passengers to deplane delayed domestic flights. The rule also requires airlines to provide adequate food and potable drinking water for passengers within two hours of an aircraft being delayed.

The new rule also:

• Prohibits airlines from scheduling chronically delayed flights, subjecting those who do to DOT enforcement action for unfair and deceptive practices;

• Requires airlines to designate an airline employee to monitor the effects of flight delays and cancellations, respond in a timely and substantive fashion to consumer complaints and provide information to consumers on where to file complaints;

• Requires airlines to display on their website flight delay information for each domestic flight they operate;

• Requires airlines to adopt customer service plans and audit their own compliance with their plans; and

• Prohibits airlines from retroactively applying material changes to their contracts of carriage that could have a negative impact on consumers who already have purchased tickets