EasyJet calls for review after EU ruling

"AJC" <ajc@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:qbdas1l5njip45jqr1i1idbkfv1b4m9is2@...
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:35:05 +0100, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
> <tim_in_sweden2005.uk> wrote:

>
> I wonder what the possibilities would be, legal and otherwise, of
> low-cost carriers offering two types of fare, one at current bargain
> rates if the passenger agrees to waive his compensation rights, and
> another with a built in premium to cover the airline in case they have
> to pay out to passengers who don't waive those rights. Let the
> customer choose the level of risk.

No need to create a fare stucture based on risk, it already exists. I choose
the level of risk by flying full fare airlines and I never fly budget
airlines.

MC

In message <qbdas1l5njip45jqr1i1idbkfv1b4m9is2@>, at 17:45:51 on
Wed, 11 Jan 2006, AJC <ajc@wxs.nl> remarked:
>I wonder what the possibilities would be, legal and otherwise, of
>low-cost carriers offering two types of fare, one at current bargain
>rates if the passenger agrees to waive his compensation rights, and
>another with a built in premium to cover the airline in case they have
>to pay out to passengers who don't waive those rights. Let the
>customer choose the level of risk.

What people seem to have forgotten is that the major cause for complaint
used to be airlines "denying boarding" - ie bumping people because they
overbooked. Perhaps these new rules have made airlines do this a great
deal less, or am I imagining it? If you read the news today, most say
that they will claim every possible kind of delay is beyond their
control (and are mysteriously silent on the overbooking issue).

While I have some sympathy for airlines who have problems with technical
faults, weather, atc strikes, and so on...[1] I doubt I'd be interested
(most of the time) in being offered one price for a flight where I was
almost certain to get bumped, and a higher one if I was unlikely to get
bumped. Especially when most routes I fly have at most two planes a day,
and many just one.

[1] Although they could mitigate these by giving all the passengers a
form to give to their insurers confirming the nature of the problem, and
people would soon cotton on.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:17:42 -0000, "MC" <incog_mailm> wrote:

>No need to create a fare stucture based on risk, it already exists. I choose
>the level of risk by flying full fare airlines and I never fly budget
>airlines.

but it is the full fare airlines which do the vast majority of over
booking and bumping as well as the crashes. When last did any of the
budget airlines crash?
One other small point, I get to Paris and back for just over £25 and
apart from £1.80 the bulk is made up of airport tax? ? ? Mid-week
breaks and sometimes a long week-end. Long may it continue.

Capitalism, market forces, French food and long legged French
birds.....I love 'em!

"Walt" <swisher@imperialISP.org.ca> wrote in message
news:dvpas157a6svviblj1thi1pe9l3soojj6c@...
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:17:42 -0000, "MC" <incog_mailm> wrote:
>
>>No need to create a fare stucture based on risk, it already exists. I
>>choose
>>the level of risk by flying full fare airlines and I never fly budget
>>airlines.
>
> but it is the full fare airlines which do the vast majority of over
> booking and bumping as well as the crashes. When last did any of the
> budget airlines crash?

Crashes? Flights in either type of airline carry the same risk of
crashing.. This, however, is not the risk we are talking about. We are
talking about the risk from being left high and dry should a plane be
cancelled , delayed or the passenger being bumped without due help and
compensatory action from said airline.

Bumping, delays or cancellations by the full fare airlines "normally"
results in fair or decent compensation (hotel accomm, cash or free flights
and a more or less guaranteed seat on the next flight). However, being
bumped, delayed or having your flight cancelled by the budget airlines
carries the risk that you are, more often than not, left stranded and it is
only pot luck you can get on another flight within a day or two. Other than
that you are on your own. I, personally, will not take the risk being a
victim of delays and cancellations from "budget" airline.

Still, the choices are there. You pay peanuts you get monkeys.

MC

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:17:42 -0000, "MC" <incog_mailm> wrote:

>
>"AJC" <ajc@wxs.nl> wrote in message
>news:qbdas1l5njip45jqr1i1idbkfv1b4m9is2@.. .
>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:35:05 +0100, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
>> <tim_in_sweden2005.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> I wonder what the possibilities would be, legal and otherwise, of
>> low-cost carriers offering two types of fare, one at current bargain
>> rates if the passenger agrees to waive his compensation rights, and
>> another with a built in premium to cover the airline in case they have
>> to pay out to passengers who don't waive those rights. Let the
>> customer choose the level of risk.
>
>
>No need to create a fare stucture based on risk, it already exists. I choose
>the level of risk by flying full fare airlines and I never fly budget
>airlines.
>
>MC
>

Yes, so do I, but it seems that the legislators want to deny you and I
that choice, in effect forcing us to pay an 'insurance' premium to
cover the risk that some of us sometimes choose to bare.
--==++AJC++==--

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 22:54:07 -0000, "MC" <incog_mailm> wrote:

>
>"Walt" <swisher@imperialISP.org.ca> wrote in message
>news:dvpas157a6svviblj1thi1pe9l3soojj6c@.. .
>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:17:42 -0000, "MC" <incog_mailm> wrote:
>>
>>>No need to create a fare stucture based on risk, it already exists. I
>>>choose
>>>the level of risk by flying full fare airlines and I never fly budget
>>>airlines.
>>
>> but it is the full fare airlines which do the vast majority of over
>> booking and bumping as well as the crashes. When last did any of the
>> budget airlines crash?
>
>Crashes? Flights in either type of airline carry the same risk of
>crashing.. This, however, is not the risk we are talking about. We are
>talking about the risk from being left high and dry should a plane be
>cancelled , delayed or the passenger being bumped without due help and
>compensatory action from said airline.
>
>Bumping, delays or cancellations by the full fare airlines "normally"
>results in fair or decent compensation (hotel accomm, cash or free flights
>and a more or less guaranteed seat on the next flight). However, being
>bumped, delayed or having your flight cancelled by the budget airlines
>carries the risk that you are, more often than not, left stranded and it is
>only pot luck you can get on another flight within a day or two. Other than
>that you are on your own. I, personally, will not take the risk being a
>victim of delays and cancellations from "budget" airline.
>
>Still, the choices are there. You pay peanuts you get monkeys.
>
>MC
>

Exactly. The whole point is should we as consumers be free to choose
to book a budget flight at our own risk, or do we need the nanny state
to force a safety net under us, for which we would inevitably have to
pay. I want to continue to be able to choose between British Airways
with their service levels, delay/cancellation compensation policies,
and Easyjet with their service levels and delay/cancellation
compensation policies.
--==++AJC++==--

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:40:20 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <qbdas1l5njip45jqr1i1idbkfv1b4m9is2@>, at 17:45:51 on
>Wed, 11 Jan 2006, AJC <ajc@wxs.nl> remarked:
>>I wonder what the possibilities would be, legal and otherwise, of
>>low-cost carriers offering two types of fare, one at current bargain
>>rates if the passenger agrees to waive his compensation rights, and
>>another with a built in premium to cover the airline in case they have
>>to pay out to passengers who don't waive those rights. Let the
>>customer choose the level of risk.
>
>What people seem to have forgotten is that the major cause for complaint
>used to be airlines "denying boarding" - ie bumping people because they
>overbooked. Perhaps these new rules have made airlines do this a great
>deal less, or am I imagining it? If you read the news today, most say
>that they will claim every possible kind of delay is beyond their
>control (and are mysteriously silent on the overbooking issue).
>

Well low-cost airlines generally don't overbook, so as a greater
percentage of flights are made with low-cost airlines, so the
relevance of being bumped due to overbooking will fall.
--==++AJC++==--

In message <kmacs11dspm2kjtoaa853eakbc892jlheg@>, at 11:11:56 on
Thu, 12 Jan 2006, AJC <ajc@wxs.nl> remarked:

>Well low-cost airlines generally don't overbook,

Perhaps because they know that it's not "worth it" given the
compensation they would have to pay.

FWIW, some of the worst overbooking I've experienced was on the late
(and to some extent lamented) KLM-UK on their STN-AMS flights. And they
were an early (if not dyed-in-the-wool) low-cost airline.

>so as a greater percentage of flights are made with low-cost airlines,
>so the relevance of being bumped due to overbooking will fall.

Only because the system of regulation is working.

And why deny the possibility of compensation to those booking with "full
fare" airlines, who do still regularly overbook?
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 10:37:46 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <kmacs11dspm2kjtoaa853eakbc892jlheg@>, at 11:11:56 on
>Thu, 12 Jan 2006, AJC <ajc@wxs.nl> remarked:
>
>>Well low-cost airlines generally don't overbook,
>
>Perhaps because they know that it's not "worth it" given the
>compensation they would have to pay.
>

It just doesn't fit with that business plan. If you don't offer
refunds for no-shows, you don't need to overbook, simple as that.


>FWIW, some of the worst overbooking I've experienced was on the late
>(and to some extent lamented) KLM-UK on their STN-AMS flights. And they
>were an early (if not dyed-in-the-wool) low-cost airline.
>

I would call them a low-service airline, they never did operate the
low-cost model, just reduced service levels as a regional and feeder
service. They did set up Buzz which was a real low-cost airline
though. And yes, I did also have a number of problems with Air UK then
KLM UK flights.


>>so as a greater percentage of flights are made with low-cost airlines,
>>so the relevance of being bumped due to overbooking will fall.
>
>Only because the system of regulation is working.
>
>And why deny the possibility of compensation to those booking with "full
>fare" airlines, who do still regularly overbook?

I agree entirely. If you pay for full-service flights you should
expect more for your money.
--==++AJC++==--

In message <oljcs19gc11pa53h9aq2f1micv2m1t6o5s@>, at 13:54:38 on
Thu, 12 Jan 2006, AJC <ajc@wxs.nl> remarked:

>>At what level do you think "nanny" should operate?
>
>Health and safety, and openness and clarity. The first need no
>explanation, by the last two I mean the service provider should be
>legally obliged to explain exactly what the customer can expect, and
>the customer should be obliged to agree to those terms and conditions,
>in other words clicking the "I accept" box before clicking on the
>final "OK" button.

I agree with respect to health and safety, but no airline (nor other
business) has ever made other expectations clear in the way you
describe.

But airlines don't say: "our auditors predict a 60% chance we'll go
bankrupt between now and the date of your flight, and generally there's
a 5% chance you'll get bumped, 4% we'll cancel the flight and fly you
the next day (without paying for a hotel), and a 3% chance we'll lose
your baggage, a 2% chance we'll have failed to pay our fuel bills and be
on credit hold until we can sort something out, and a 1% chance we'll
have a dispute with our caterers so there's no food available - do you
accept those risks"; and so on.

>You can expand that to every human activity, to every commercial
>transaction, and you end up regulating everything just to protect
>people from themselves, ending up with a socialist 'paradise' catering
>for the lowest common denominator. Where do you want to draw the line?

Where it is at the moment, for airlines cancelling flights for
commercial reasons, and bumping, is fine by me. I also think that all
airlines (and other public transport) should accept the risk that they
must eventually fly the passenger for no extra cost if there are
unforeseen problems - weather, ATC strikes, technical problems etc.

What I'm not so sure about is who should pick up the tab if a pilot
oversleeps and the airline has no replacement. (And similar relatively
"internal" issues).

>I say oblige the providers to inform their customers, oblige the
>customers to acknowledge existence of that information, then leave us
>free-thinking individuals to make our own choices.

There's a whole heap of information we aren't getting yet.
--
Roland Perry