I just feel sad and a bit angry that it has come to this, especially when a paying J customer with FF status. It definitely has though, and I adopt a similar approach when travelling for work or for leisure for particular family occasions/commitments.
100%. I recently had some time on my hands, so sent an email to my Federal MP, Patrick Gorman asking if the Government were going to set up a proper ombudsman or introduce something similar to EU 261.
Do you review the daily ATFM plan (technically there are several per day, but they call it daily) and the monthly operational reports? Are you a user of Harmony? My guess is that you don't even know what it is.
Bizarrely, no, they don't. The airport themselves have absolutely no part in the slot management and ATFM process. In fact, they have far less knowledge and access than the airlines. It's the whole point of the process that creates a Chinese wall between the airports and the airlines with respect to slot management and utilisation, and to remove them from lobbying within the process so as to avoid the possibility of any individual airline collaborating withe the airport.
Even if we accept for a moment that ATC delays are outside of the control of airlines for the purpose of EU261, could that defence be extinguished given the length of the delay? For instance, if ATC delays causes a scheduled flight to be cancelled and the next flight they put you on departs a day later, that seems unreasonable. Sure the airlines could argue that was the next available flight for the passenger for a service they operate, but one could make the argument that there are other services that could have gotten the passenger in sooner (i.e. operated by Virgin). At the same time, depending on when the cancellation was spotted one also has to wonder whether the airline could have done something to prevent the disruption. For instance, could they not have simply put them on the nonstop between SIN and MEL (I think QF operates that service).But yes, ATC delays related to flow rate limitations would clearly be within the realm of "extraordinary circumstances". I've worked in this space and this was pretty normal - this is because it's rather easy for the airline to show since they will share a communication from the ATC ATFM which shows a flow rate limitation during the departure block. Generally, the airline will attach a copy of this to the notes in the GDS to document it specifically to avoid the EU261 penalty. LH even created an automated processA difference is if the ATC was caused by an airline error, e.g. missing CODT or missing a slot for an operational delay which led to further delays.
That was in specific reference to the ‘ghost’ flights, which were cancelled weeks before departure. Different scenario than same day IRROPS where flights are already nearing capacity and then have to handle additional pax coming off other flights.
Conceptually it could, but it might be dependent on the scale of the reduction in flow. If QF or VA get told to reduce one movement an hour, then it's inevitable that it's a SYD-MEL or MEL-SYD that gets cancelled and conceptually it shouldn't be challenging to reaccomodate people sooner given the large redundancies.
)I would argue that delay two flights by 2.5 hours is better than delaying a single flight by 4 hours (or more) as the case may be. The other thing to keep in mind about EU261 is what matters is arrival at final destination. So if you are on a connecting flight (which largely is the case for flights to Oceania from Europe) having a 4 hour delay in and of itself may not trigger EU261 (especially if some passengers had long layovers at the connection point anyways). If anything what EU261 should trigger airlines to do is to look at the individual passenger and see how they are impacted by a flight change. Not all changes will impact passengers but some will and action should thus be taken such as rerouting them to prevent the delayed arrival.
Thanks @evanb , very informative.
From a consumer's point of view, the question now is why are airlines just reacting to a daily evening situational briefing by cancelling flights the next day, and not, especially in the case of Sydney, adjusting (reduced) their schedules over a longer time frame, given that these issues have been present for some time and I guess will continue for a while yet? (Warning - leading question
I see it somewhat differently. Delaying 180 pax for 4 hours each, or 360 pax for 2.5 hours each? I think delaying more people for a little less is probably worse, but that is very subjective. You're correct on the arrival time, but the majority of pax in Australia or Europe are single trip short haul, not affected by connections.
) and then get shafted to a poor seat on the next one, or in the case of wanting J, potentially waiting more time (or being downgraded) to get you there.
