Are airlines treating passengers of disrupted flights fairly?

Courtesy Reuters

IF you were travelling on Singapore Airlines (SIA) out of London and your flight is delayed or cancelled, you may be compensated up to €600 according to European Union (EU) regulations. However, if it is an outbound flight from Singapore, what compensation a passenger may receive, if any, will depend on the policy of the airline.

This is because EU regulations do not apply to non-EU carriers arriving at an airport in member countries although it covers all departing flights of both EU and non-EU carriers.

The regulations have recently been extended to include connections even if these are operated outside the EU by non-EU airlines. The ruling states that “an operating air carrier that has performed the first flight cannot take refuge behind a claim that the performance of a subsequent flight operated by another air carrier was imperfect.” It is therefore obliged to offer passengers alternative transport for the disrupted flight, in addition to monetary compensation.

Over in Canada, the Air Passenger Protection Regulations introduced by the Canada Transportation Agency require airlines affected by flight disruptions to meet certain obligations which will apply to all flights to, from and within Canada, including connecting flights. Passengers whose flights are delayed or cancelled will be compensated up to C$1,000 depending on the size of the airline and length of the disruption. Non-compliance carries a fine of up to C$25,000.

Countries elsewhere do not generally legislate on mandatory fiduciary compensation of a stipulated amount for flight disruptions. In the United States, airlines are obliged to compensate passengers who are bumped off a flight due to an overbooking situation (as in the EU and Canada), but there are no federal regulations requiring them to do the same thing for passengers whose flights are delayed or cancelled.

Consumer rights groups have long been pushing for fairer treatment of travellers under these circumstances. Besides arranging meals and hotel accommodation in the event of a long delay, some airlines hand out in-flight gift vouchers, but most do not make any form of financial payment. In many cases the affected passengers get not much more than an apology while they wait to be put on the next available flight.

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) recognises the vulnerability of passengers and supports “due attention… (which) could include rerouting, refund, care and/or compensation”, but it stops short of spelling out specifics and making them industry standards. The International Air Transport Association is however concerned that airlines may be adversely affected, advocating “an appropriate balance between protection of consumers and industry competitiveness.”

Affected passengers therefore by and large can only rely on the goodwill of the airlines, whose policies differ across the industry. Many of them have come to realise that to take the matter further on their own – including bringing an airline to court – can be tedious, frustrating and, more often than not, futile. What they need is the support of an authority who can enforce compliance within a legal framework.

Yes, even with mandatory compensation in place in the EU and Canada, there have been complaints that the airlines are not forthcoming in meeting their obligations, citing extraordinary circumstances that do not render them liable or delaying payment indefinitely. Still, in the context of good governance, what the EU and Canada have introduced is a significant step forward in recognition of the uphill challenge passengers face in their battle with the airlines for fair compensation.

Some airport authorities fine airlines for flight delays or operating off-schedule because it disrupts and causes less-than-optimal resource allocation that can be costly to the airport’s operations. By the same argument, passengers of disrupted flights deserve to be fairly compensated. The disruption can be costly in terms of making alternative arrangements, staying in some place longer than planned, and losing opportunities as in failing to make a business deadline. Above all, it causes anguish and distress.

The amounts recommended by the EU and Canada are miniscule compared to the fines of up to US$27,500 per passenger imposed by the US Transportation Department for planes left on the tarmac for more than three hours (or four hours for international flights) without taking off. American Airlines and Southwest Airlines share the honour of holding the record fine of US$1.6 million, the former in 2016 and the latter in 2015.

Non-US airlines that have been penalised by the US Department of Transportation (DOT) include Japan Airlines which was fined US$300,000 for two incidents in 2018 in which passengers were made to wait more than four hours on the tarmac before they could deplane.

All these measures serve the common goal of encouraging airlines to ensure their flights operate as scheduled and hopefully too that they become more conscientious about how they treat their customers. However, the fines imposed by DOT do not directly benefit the passengers who are the very reason why an airline is in business.

An example of how an airline may take the EU regulations seriously is when British Airways, faced with the threat of strike action by its pilots recently, informed its customers as early as two weeks of cancellations of some flights to avoid paying compensation.

However, do not expect similar regulations to be introduced any time soon in other parts of the world. For one thing, consumer rights groups do not appear to be as aggressive, and many countries especially Asia are less prone to industrial action. Besides major Asian carriers known for good customer service are more responsive to feedback and complaints and may already be offering some form of compensation even if they are not as generous.

But as the number rises, there is a greater need to ensure that affected passengers are fairly treated. The powers that be can ensure that. According to aviation data and analytics experts at Cirium, about 3.9 million flights or 10,700 a day were delayed by over 30 minutes or cancelled worldwide in 2018. Take a typical day on 5 August 2019.there were 22,386 delays and 1,107 cancellations globally, of which 29 per cent of the combined total occurred in the United States, 26 per cent in Europe, and 34 per cent in Asia Pacific.

Until then, here’s a poser for SIA and the likes: Will they accord the same level of comnpensation to all passengers even if they are not bound by regulations, for no better reason than simply one in the name of fairness?

Advertisements

Caution keeps B737 Max jet grounded

Courtesy Getty Images

Carriers which had been hopeful that the Boeing B737 Max jet would return to the skies as early as next month have deferred scheduled dates to operate the aircraft.

Earlier in August, Boeing CEO Dennis Mullenburg was hopeful that this would happen in the fourth quarter of the year and the airlines could look forward to capturing the peak holiday season traffic.

American Airlines which owns 24 of the Max jet is pushing the date to Dec 3. United Airlines with a fleet of 14 is moving it further down the road to Dec 19. It looks like both carriers are still hoping to cash in on what shall remain of the peak season including the Christmas holiday. But Southwest Airlines, the largest of the Max operators worldwide with 34 aircraft has moved the scheduled date to Jan 5 next year.

North of the border, Air Canada (which owns 24 Max jets) and Sunwing (with 4 aircraft) are not expecting the aircraft to be operational until next year. For Air Canada, it is Jan 8. And for Sunwing, even later in May. WestJet (with a fleet of 13 Max jets) too is not scheduling Max flights during the year-end holiday season, but said the company might consider an occasional flight to ease the demand should the ban be lifted then.

WestJet’s vice-president in charge of scheduling said: “It’s a little harder to unmix the cake at that point, but we would look at peak days, the Friday before Christmas (for example) where we can still sell seats and we’ll put the airplane back in.”

Elsewhere across the world, affected carriers remain non-committal on their plans. Other major operators until the jet was grounded include Norwegian Air Shuttle (18 aircraft), China Southern Airlines (16), TUI Group (15), China Eastern Airlines (14), Lion Air (14), FlyDubai (14), Turkish Airlines (12), and XiamenAir (10).

The B737 Max jet was grounded globally following two fatal incidents, one involving Indonesian carrier Lion Air in Oct last year and the other involving Ethiopian Airlines in Mar this year, both crashes claiming a total of 346 lives.

Quite naturally, carriers which own the Max jet are keen to see its early return to the skies. Many of them have cut back capacity to cope with the shortage of aircraft and are reporting losses as a consequence. United which took out 70 flights a day in its September schedule will see the number increased to 90 in December. Together, the three airlines – American, United and Southwest – have cancelled 30,000 flights. Delta Air Lines, however, stands to gain from these airlines’ disadvantage as it does not own any Max aircraft.

Budget carrier Norwegian Air Shuttle which plies the ultra-long haul is said to be on the brink of collapse, and the grounding of the B737 Max jet isn’t helping. According to former CEO Bjorn Kjos, the restriction has cost the airline US$58 million. Norwegian, which took the US by storm with its low fares, raising objection from American carriers, has cancelled numerous flights between Europe and the U.S.

Both the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Boeing have suffered some loss of credibility in the wake of the two crashes. Stories about Boeing’s shoddy work at is plants and allegations of FAA’s relegating its oversight role to the manufacturer had hit hard. FAA’s delayed action to ground the Max jet after a number of authorities across the globe had done so also called into question FAA’s leadership role in the field.

However, FAA may have learnt its lesson. Following meetings between Boeing and various industry players where disagreement on the readiness of the Max jet was apparent, FAA had said, “Our first priority is safety, and we have set no timeframe for when the work will be complete. Each government will make its own decision to return the aircraft to service, based on a thorough safety assessment.”

Europe’s aviation safety watchdog – the European Aviation Safety Agency (Easa) – for one will not rely entirely on a US verdict on whether the Max jet is safe to resume flying. It will instead additionally conduct its own tests on the plane before giving its final approval.

Transport Canada has insisted on the need for essential simulator training in early discussions when Boeing said it was not necessary since the Max jet was a variation of the B737 master model. The authority said it “will not lift the current flight restriction… until it is fully satisfied that all concerns have been addressed by the manufacturer and U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, and adequate flight crew procedures and training are in place.”

According to a report by the Wall Street Journal, multiple regulatory bodies around the world were not satisfied with Boeing’s briefing on the Max software update. They contended that Boeing “failed to provide technical details and answer specific questions about (the) modifications.” Boeing is expected to resubmit documents providing more details, and that these should be first approved by FAA before a follow-up meeting is convened. This in a way reminds FAA of its oversight role.

While affected airlines are looking forward to normalising their operations with the return of the B737 Max jet, what happens post-ban is another story. In fact, it may present a more difficult problem to handle than the technical aspects of the saga as the carriers try to win back the trust of travellers. If, indeed time is the healer, then taking the time to be absolutely convinced of the jet’s airworthiness before lifting the ban may be a good thing for the airlines.

A matter of fair play: Canada and European Union expand protection of air travellers’ rights

Courtesy LaPresse

Flight delays and cancellations may be said to be part and parcel of air travel given that they are happening more often than not.

Take a typical day as 5 August, 2019: According to Cirium, there were 22,386 delays and 1,107 cancellations globally, of which 29 per cent of the combined total occurred in the United States, 26 per cent in Europe, and 34 per cent in Asia Pacific.

But what recourse do affected travellers have in the event that they are inconvenienced?

While the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) recognizes the vulnerability of passengers and supports “due attention… (which) could include rerouting, refund, care and/or compensation”, the agency stops short of spelling out specifically what the entitlements could amount to. Similarly, the International Air Transport Association in voicing support for ICAO’s stand is concerned how the airlines may be adversely affected, seeking “an appropriate balance between protection of consumers and industry competitiveness.”

In the Untied States, for example, there are no federal regulations requiring airlines to compensate passengers when flights are delayed or cancelled, unless they are bumped off a flight due to an overbooking situation. Strictly applied, airlines are not obliged to put you on another airline’s flight.

So too around much of the world, many governments do not legislate on the matter. Different airlines have different policies to handle such situations, but it has always been arguable as to what constitutes fair compensation. And travellers who have been left high and dry are often impotent seeking redress, resigned to the mercy of the airlines.

What air travellers need is an authoritative voice to decide on fair play There is hope however if more regulators will follow in the footsteps of their counterparts in Canada and the European Union which have in recent weeks expanded legislation to protect passengers’ rights.

Canada

The Air Passenger Protection Regulations introduced by the Canada Transportation Agency require airlines affected by flight disruptions to meet certain obligations which will apply to all flights to, from and within Canada, including connecting flights.

Passengers whose flights are delayed or cancelled will be compensated up to C$1,000 (US$756) in accordance with the size of the airline and length of the disruption. Large airlines will pay out more than small airlines: C$400 and C$125 respectively for delays between three and six hours, C$700 and C$250 for delays between six and nine hours, and C$500 and C$1,000 for delays nine hours or more.

Non-complying airlines may be fined up to C$25,000 for non-compliance.

The regulations also cover other obligations such as clear communication and updates, reasonable food catering, the need for ventilation if passengers are stuck on the tarmac, allowing passengers to leave the aircraft if the delays exceed three hours, re-booking and refund. Passengers may be compensated up to C$2,100 for lost luggage and up to C$2,400 if bumped from a flight.

Not surprisingly, the airlines – supported by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) – are saying the rules go too far. Advocates of passenger rights on the other hand say they do not go far enough. But it nevertheless is a step forward.

Europe

The European Union’s regulations have been expanded to include connections even if they are operated by non-EU airlines.

The new regulation states: “In the case of flights with one or more connections that are subject to a single reservation, an operating air carrier that has performed the first flight cannot take refuge behind a claim that the performance of a subsequent flight operated by another air carrier was imperfect.”

The operating carrier will also have to offer passengers alternative transport for the disrupted flight, in addition to compensating them with an amount ranging from US$290 to US$700.

The European Union has been a prominent pusher to protect passengers’ rights. Considering its history of disruptions caused by industrial action by airline and airport staff, this is a welcome move to air travellers.

However, many travellers may be discouraged by the cumbersome claims procedure which may involve a cut by an agency handling the claim on their behalf if they choose to go through a third party, and by the long settlement time of a claim. Still, it is another step forward.

One wonders, if a non-EU airline agrees to abide by the EU regulations for its flights operating into and out of Europe, is there a good chance it would be as amenable to similarly apply fair treatment to its customers outside the region, particularly at its home base?

2019 Skytrax World Airline Awards: Who are the real winners?

It’s that time of the year when the airline industry is abuzz with the Skytrax World Airline Awards announced recently at the Paris Air Show.

There are surveys and there are surveys, if you know what I mean. Skytrax, which launched its survey back in 1999 (according to its website) is generally viewed with some regard. It is said that more than 21 million respondents participated in the 2019 survey.

But what can we read of the results?

Which is the real winner: Qatar Airways or Singapore Airlines?

Qatar Airways switched places with last year winner Singapore Airlines (SIA) to be the world’s best airline.

As far back as 2010 until now, the two airlines have been ranked one behind the other in the top three spots, except in 2012 when Asiana came in second place between Qatar the winner and SIA in third position. In the ten year period, SIA came behind Qatar in eight years, except in 2010 when SIA was second and Qatar third, and last year when the Singapore carrier became the world’s best ahead of Qatar in second placing.

It looks like a tight race between Qatar and SIA for the top spot, and going by the survey results, Qatar has outranked SIA. It has become the first airline to have won the award five times, one more in the history of the awards.

But SIA is still ranked ahead of Qatar for first class and economy class.

In the first class category, Qatar is not even a close second to SIA in first placing but fifth behind Lufthansa, Air France and Etihad as well

In the economy class category, Japan Airlines is tops followed by SIA and Qatar in second and third placing respectively.

Besides SIA has the best premium economy in Asia, second only to Virgin Atlantic worldwide. But,of course, Qatar does not offer that class of travel.

Additionally SIA tops for cabin crew, and Qatar is farther down the list in 9th position.

But Qatar wins for business class, followed by ANA and SIA in second and third placing respectively. So it seems there is heavier weightage for this segment which has become probably the fiercest battleground for the airlines. First class included, it also suggests the halo effect of the premium product, but it is the business class that is the primary focus in today’s business.

It also attests to the impact of the recency factor. Qatar obviously impresses with its cubicle-like Qsuite that comes with its own door to provide maximum privacy. Quad configurations allow businessmen to engage in conference as if they were in a meeting room and families to share their own private space. And there is a double bed option.

Which brings up the importance of having to continually innovate and upgrade the product to stay ahead in the race.

The top ten listing: Consistency equals excellence

The ranking does not shift much from year to year. Besides Qatar and SIA, there are some familiar names: All Nippon Airways (3rd this year), Cathay Pacific (4th), Emirates (5th), EVA Air (6th) and Lufthansa (9th). So there is not much of a big deal as airlines switch places so long as they remain in the premier list.

Hainan Airlines (7th) is making good progress, moving up one notch every year since 2017. Qantas (8th) is less consistent, moving in and out of the top ten list, Thai Airways retained its 10th spot for a second year.

It is no surprise that the list continues to be dominated by Asian carriers which are generally reputed for service. You only need to look at the winners for best cabin crew: Besides SIA, the list is made up of Garuda Indonesia, ANA, Thai Airways, EVA Air, Cathay Pacific, Hainan Airlines, Japan Airlines and China Airlines. With the exception of Qatar, no other airline outside Asia is listed.

If you to look to find out how the United States carriers are performing, scroll down the extended list of the 100 best and you will see JetBlue Airways (40th), Delta Air Lines (41st), Southwest Airlines (47th), Alaska Airlines (54th), United Airlines (68th) and American Airlines (74th).

Home and regional rivalry

Rivalry between major home airlines or among competing regional carriers is often closely watched.

Air Canada, placed 31st ahead of rival WestJet at 55th can boast it is the best in North America. That’s how you can work the survey results to your advantage.

ANA (3rd) has consistently outdone arch rival JAL (11th). In fact, ANA has been the favoured airline in the past decade till now. It has Japan’s best airline staff and best cabin crew. Across Asia, it provides the best business class. Internationally, it provides the best airport services and business class onboard catering.

Asiana (28th) is favoured over Korean Air (35th ).

The big three Gulf carriers are ranked Qatar first, followed by Emirates (5th) and Etihad (29th).

Among the European carriers, Lufthansa (9th) leads the field, followed by Swiss International Air Lines (13th), Austrian Airlines (15th), KLM (18th), British Airways (19th), Virgin Atlantic (21st), Aeroflot (22nd), Air France (23rd), Iberia (26th) and Finnair (32nd).

What about low-cost carriers?

Worthy of note is how some budget carriers are ranked not far behind legacy airlines. AirAsia (20th) is best among cohorts. EasyJet (37th) and Norwegian Air Shuttle (39th) are not far behind the big guys in Europe. Among US carriers, Southwest Airlines (47th) is third after JetBlue (40th) and Delta (41st).

Also, pedigree parents do not necessarily produce top-ranked offshoots. Placed farther down the list are SIA’s subsidiary Scoot (64th) and the two Jetstar subsidiaries of Qantas – Jetstar Airways (53rd) and Jetstar Asia (81st). So too may be said of so-called regional arms. Cathay Pacific’s Cathay Dragon is ranked 33rd, but SIA’s SilkAir is way down at 62nd.

Pioneer of the modern budget model Ryanair is ranked 59th.

Down the slippery road of decline: Aisana Airlines and Etihad Airways

If it is difficult to stay at the top, it is easy to slip down the slippery road of decline. Asiana and Etihad are two examples.

Asiana was ranked world’s best airline in 2010 and became a familiar name in the top ten list up to 2014, after which its ranking kept falling: 11th (2015), 16th (2016), 20th (2017), 24th (2018) and 28th (2019). Its erstwhile glory has been whittled down to being just best cabin crew in South Korea.

Etihad did reasonably well for eight years until 2018 when it was ranked 15th, and a year later suffered a dramatic decline to the 29th spot. That, despite beating Qatar to be this year’s best first class in the Middle East.

As I stated at the onset that there are surveys and there are surveys. Some are not specifically targeted , whether its interest is business or leisure for example. There is always an element of subjectivity and bias in the composition and weightage, and this renders no one reading as being definitive. At best, we can read across several creditable surveys to know with some conviction how the airlines really measure against each other.

Read also:

https://www.todayonline.com/commentary/can-singapore-airlines-overtake-qatar-worlds-best-airline

IAG Boost for Boeing

Courtesy Boeing

British Airways owner IAG made a bold decision at the Paris Air Show when it announced a tentative order of 200 Boeing B737 MAX jet. It must have surprised quite a number of industry folk to come so soon after the fatal Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines incidents, and that the aircraft is still being grounded. After all, Boeing CEO Dennis Mullenberg had said participation at the Paris Air Show for Boeing was not about getting new aircraft orders but to restore confidence in the MAX jet. IAG’s support has certainly given Boeing that much needed boost.

Now, is IAG being too hasty at a time when many people are still not comfortable about thinking of flying the MAX as it stays grounded? Clearly the European airline group which also operates Iberia, Aer Lingus and budget carriers Vueling and Level is convinced the time will come, and when it does, IAG partners are ready ahead of others. It is not as if the aircraft will be delivered to IAG’s doorsteps the following morning. And with that conviction, now may be an excellent time to cut a good deal when Boeing is hungry to regain customers’ favour.

It would be a tad too altruistic to think IAG’s decision was a deliberate move for the benefit of the airline community, so as to keep the competition between Boeing and Airbus alive. As it is, Airbus which announced a new version of the A321 at the Paris Air Show, is not hiding its disappointment over the IAG-Boeing deal, noting that IAG had not issued a formal tender and staring Airbus’ interest in bidding for the order.

“We would like a chance to compete for that business,” Airbus chief commercial officer Christian Scherer told reporters at the show.

Now, given the boost by IAG, Boeing said it was in talks with a number of other airlines for sales of its MAX jet. It needed to keep up the momentum.

The big question still remains as to when the MAX jet will get off the ground. IAG may be right that time heals, and many travellers will eventually get back to flying the MAX jet whether out of necessity or expedience. Obviously the traveller doesn’t figure in the equation. After all, how many people are actually finicky about the make of the aircraft that they are flying? There will be some, but will the number be material enough to make the airlines think twice?

Skytrax Best Airports 2019: No surprises

Generally the Skytrax list of top ten airports does not surprise. It’s very much the same again this year, with the airlines staying in the same rank or switching positions one up or down. Frankfurt Airport is the ony one to drop out of the list, replaced by Tokyo Narita.

Courtesy Changi Airport

Singapore Changi wins hands down, a record seven years. With continuing construction of new facilities and upgrading works, it is one hard to beat. Changi pampers the travellers, and respondents give it top honours for leisure amenities. But it is ranked behind Seoul Incheon and the Japanese airports of Tokyo Narita, Tokyo Haneda and Centrair Nagoya for airport staff service. It is also second to Seoul Incheon for international transit.

Worthy of note is again the absence of North American airports but the rising popularity of Japanese airports. No surprise that Tokyo Haneda and Centrair Nagoya are the two cleanest, with Tokyo Narita and Kansai also in the list. Doha Hamad International is the only Middle East airport in the top ten, and you may ask where is Dubai International as the world’s busiest airport. The list is generally dominated by Asian airports, but European airports have managed to maintain some presence in the top ranks: Munich (7th), London Heathrow (8th) and Zurich (10th).

The modern airport is today more than a mere transportation centre facilitating movement from one place to another, but a metropolis in its own right as airports compete to keep the numbers coming. Shopping for example is an important feature, for which London Heathrow wins the day. So too is dining, for which Hong Kong is a consistent winner.

The form impresses, but it is empty if not supported by substance. The basics are still important, such as baggage delivery which according to the survey is best provided by Kansai.

A new category introduced this year – best website and digital services – sees the mention of an American winner: entity: Houston Airports System. By he way, Houston George Bush is ranked fifth for dining. So there is hope, America!

Hidden city fares – Is it fair game?

News update: courtesy BBC

Courtesy Getty Images

http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20190226-the-travel-trick-that-airlines-hate