When in Rome do as the Romans do. Having worked for an airline I believe the EU are completely wrong with their penalties. Did you buy 2 tkts to undercut the through fare? Then try and accuse the airline of not being fair? If you had purchased a through fare with connex on res then you would receive all benefits. The fares are cheaper now as is so , then why did you buy 2 seperate tkts ? The other airline is not responsible if you fail to connect. Perhaps you should sue Airbus. Also Finnair and Qf are one world partners, so no reason to book seperately. Or as said trying to undercut the fare.!!!! Fares are cheaper now than 20 years ago. Do you know the expenses of an airline?
Gate fees, aircraft costs , etc, etc, . It seems everybody wants everything for nothing. Instead of trying to undercut the fares on line ,call the carrier. It is only a means of getting from A-B , but prople believe they are so important. Air travel is not as was. The EU are stupid. Finnair are a brilliant airline considering the size and population if their country.
I thought the point of the EU compensation was to deter airlines from treating passengers poorly and having all sorts of foreseeable delays.
There's many incidences where airlines have messed passengers around not because of weather or genuinely unforeseeable reasons but because its not profitable for them to deliver the service they sell and people buy in good faith.
There's many incidences where some airlines have absolutely no regard for the poor passengers. They may miss getting to see their terminally ill father before they die or get to their funeral for example. It's not always missing a few hours of a sunny holiday.
It's my understanding that Finnair made a business decision to take a gamble on new A350 planes and take lots of bookings when these brand new planes had not gone through the usual airline teething and testing problems that come with new products.
Nicnet and I aren't the only passengers who experienced these significant and lengthy delays, there were many others.
Many others, who were not forced to go through the Finnish Court system. Finnair paid their compensation because they could not claim it was "unforeseeable and unavoidable"
In my personal circumstance, we bought a ticket from what we believed to be a reputable airline who would get us from A to B on time (or as close to as possible, notwithstanding unforeseen and unavoidable events).
We bought tickets at short notice because our father had a stroke and we had to get there quickly and had to return to Australia in a short time frame because we had to get back to work, so therefore didn't want to travel economy for the whole journey because its so uncomfortable.
From a cost and comfort perspective, using Finnair business for part of the journey was the best way we could manage that journey. No undercutting anyone.
Later that year, my father in law passed away as a result of this stroke, far quicker than we expected.
My family travelled economy direct, there and back within a week. It's excruciatingly uncomfortable and actually painful. And that's not taking into consideration the emotional part of the whole situation.
To answer your point, no I do not know the costs of running an airline. Finnair do. That's why they set the price and sell a service that should take into consideration all the factors necessary when running a reputable business, including all they can to avoid foreseeable events that mean they can't fulfill their obligation to their customers
In the judgment of the EU courts, (and the Finnish ombudsman for that matter) they didn't, that's why they had to pay compensation to the passengers who did not need to use the Finnish court system.
.... has there been any consideration of sharing this with some of the bigger blogs such as Onemileatatime, ThePointsGuy and Viewfromthewing? Perhaps even getting matt's article syndicated?
