Airlines lose a compensation battle with passengers
The European Court of Justice rules that carriers cannot claim technical problems with planes to be "unforeseen circumstances"
By B.R.
SOME firms think that giving disgruntled customers a refund is simply good service. Marks & Spencer, for example, operates a 35-day, no-questions-asked returns policy for goods bought in its stores. Amazon, likewise, rarely argues when shoppers on its site want to return stuff they are unhappy with.
Airlines, it is fair to say, take a different view. Their attitude is perhaps best summed up by Michael O’Leary, the boss of Ryanair, Europe’s second-largest carrier. Mr O'Leary once explained to his customers: "You're not getting a refund so fuck off. We don't want to hear your sob stories. What part of 'no refund' don't you understand?"
Such stubbornness means that consumer rights for air passengers have tended to be won in the courts rather than airlines’ customer-service departments. Today, flyers gained another victory when the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled on the case of KLM v Van der Lans.
In 2009, Corina Van der Lans's KLM flight from Ecuador to the Netherlands was delayed for 29 hours after a technical fault was discovered with the plane just before take-off. EU legislation forces airlines to pay compensation of between €250-600 ($283-679) to passengers when their flight arrival has been put back more than three hours—unless the delay was due to “exceptional circumstances”. KLM, like many airlines before it, argued that, as the fault was detected after the regular pre-flight checks had been performed, it could be classified as “unforeseen” and was therefore an exceptional circumstance. It thus refused to shell out to Ms Van der Lans. Europe’s top court disagreed with KLM’s interpretation. Technical problems whenever they occur, it ruled, are indeed the responsibility of airlines.
Earlier this year, Jet2, another carrier, lost a case in a British court when offering a similar defence to KLM. It, along with several other European airlines, including Ryanair, have been refusing to pay compensation until the case at the ECJ was resolved. The airlines have now exhausted their legal options. A flood of compensation payments should follow. According to Flight-Delayed.co.uk, a claims firm, of the nearly 30,000 passengers who submitted a claim for an airline delay in the past year, over 39% were due to technical defects.
Some worry that the ruling might encourage airlines to be more blasé about safety; that small faults discovered before take-off may be ignored in case fixing them leads to a hefty compensation claim. This is unlikely thinks Andrew Charlton, an aviation consultant. Given the extent to which airlines trumpet their dedication to safety, he says, they are likely to continue to take a conservative approach to potential problems.
In any case carriers only have themselves to blame. The pickle in which they now find themselves may merely be a consequence of years of treating customers like dirt, says Mr Charlton. Perhaps one day an airline will consider distinguishing itself with a more enlightened customer service. That really would count as an exceptional circumstance.
