Complaints and enquiries - Air Transport Users Council

AIR TRANSPORT USERS COUNCIL
ANNUAL REPORT 2008/09

1
CONTENTS
CHAIRMAN’S INTRODUCTION 2
REVIEW OF THE YEAR 4
Complaints and enquiries 4
Representing passengers 12
External relations 23
THE AUC IN 2008/09 25
Members 25
Secretariat 28
Terms of reference 29
Financial summary 31
GLOSSARY 32

2
CHAIRMAN’S INTRODUCTION
There has been much discussion about the future of air passenger
representation in the UK in the past year. We have set out our own views on
this in our response to the Government’s consultation on the future framework
for the economic regulation of airports in UK, which included proposals for
moving air passenger representation in the UK from the AUC to Passenger
Focus, the body which represents rail and bus passengers.
A copy of our detailed response can be found on our website. In short, our
view is that we agree with the Government that the solution to capturing the
consumer interest in regulatory decisions on economic regulation may lie in
updating arrangements for air passenger representation. But where we differ
from the Government, and the CAA, is in what is the best way to achieve this.
We believe air passenger interests are best served by a sector-specific
organisation, in particular because of the international and competitive
characteristics of the air transport market.
In the meantime, and against this backdrop of discussions over our future, our
complaints team has been as busy as ever. We received 12,307 complaints
and enquiries last year, an increase of 11% on the year before. But
complaints are not just important on an individual basis. The complaints data
is central to the work of an air passenger representation body; in a
competitive market, it gives us an early warning sign of areas where there is
consumer detriment. We can therefore use this “intelligence” to inform our
advocacy work on behalf of all passengers.
Over the past year, we have continued to investigate a wide range of
consumer protection issues which have come to our attention through
complaints. For example, the significant increase in booking tickets online has
led to an increase in written complaints about reservation issues over the past
few years; last year we received 425 written complaints compared to 211 in
2005/06. This increase in complaints prompted us to publish our report on
“Buying tickets online – an AUC report on the pitfalls of booking tickets over
the internet” last May.
However, many of the issues that passengers contact us about have already
been addressed through recent legislation. For example, Regulation
EC261/2004 on compensation and assistance in the event of denied
boarding, cancellation and delay introduced provisions for redress and
assistance for delays and cancellations. And the Montreal Convention 1999,
which came into force in 2004, increased maximum limits for mishandled

3
baggage. Last year, Regulation EC 1008/2008 (“the third package”) came
into force. This includes provisions that should in effect bring in clarity and
commonsense to airline pricing. In addition, we can use other generic
consumer protection legislation to address areas of consumer detriment in air
transport. For example, we frequently challenge airlines’ conditions of carriage
by reference to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations.
But we continue to receive large numbers of complaints about alleged
infringements of Regulation EC 261/2004. We also believe that the Montreal
Convention has not brought about the benefits, in terms of settlements of
claims for mishandled baggage, that we had hoped for. In addition, we note
that many airlines have yet to fully comply with the provisions of the “third
package”. And a number of airlines continue to include what appear unfair to
us to be terms in their conditions of carriage.
We believe that the priority now is for us to do as much as we can to ensure
that the legislation in place is enforced by the relevant bodies to the benefit of
passengers. In general, that means a greater emphasis on our advocacy work
directed at individual carriers and at enforcement bodies, rather than at
legislators or industry trade associations. We therefore see much of our role
as increasingly being to identify issues of detriment as they arise and to feed
this intelligence to enforcement bodies.
Last year we continued to work with the CAA, the designated National
Enforcement Bodies in EU Member States, and the European Commission on
enforcement of Regulation EC261/2004. And we presented them with
evidence of instances from our complaints where we considered that airlines
had not complied with the rules. We also published a report on mishandled
baggage settlements under the Montreal Convention. “The luggage lottery –
an AUC report into compensation payments to passengers for mishandled
baggage” concluded that the Convention had not brought about the benefits
to passengers in terms of settlements for mishandled baggage that we had
hoped for when it came into force in 2005. This report has since prompted the
European Commission to consider an EU wide investigation of airline
mishandled baggage settlements.
So it has again been another packed year for the Council. I would like to thank
my fellow Members of the Council, and also the executive team, for their
support they have given me over the year. Their expertise and hard work has
been invaluable to me in what has been a challenging, but ultimately
productive, year for the AUC.
Tina Tietjen

4
REVIEW OF THE YEAR
Complaints and enquiries
In 2008/09, the AUC handled 12,307
complaints and enquiries compared to
11,077 the year before. Of these, 5953
were in writing and 6354 were by
telephone.
We accept that the number of
passengers who complain to us is tiny
compared to overall passenger numbers.
But we think the complaints we receive
give an indication of the complaints
received by airlines’ customer relations
teams. And they often give us an inside
track into the policy of an airline towards a
particular issue.
Details of written complaints and
telephone enquiries to the AUC are set
out in the tables overleaf.
A passenger had two watches
stolen from his luggage on a
trip back from the US. He
claimed for the cost of the
watches from the airline,
enclosing copies of the receipts.
However, the airline said that
under its terms and conditions it
was not liable for valuable
items and referred him to his
travel insurance. In the
meantime the airline lost the
receipts for the watches because
of an “administrative error”, so
the passenger could not claim
from his insurers. The
passenger wrote to us and we
managed to persuade the airline
to compensate the passenger for
the cost of the lost watches.
In addition, we had 113,000 hits on the
advice pages on our website, compared
to 160,000 the year before. We cannot be
sure of the reason for such a decrease but we suspect it may be a result of an
increasing number of alternative websites available that provide advice on air
travel, many of which base their information on the advice pages on the AUC
website. We are not concerned by the fall in the number of hits; so long as the
information is getting out to passengers and it is correct and up to date, it
does not matter where it comes from.

5
Written complaints in 2008/09
Type of complaint
Number of complaints
2008/09 2007/08
Cancellations 2085 1982
Delays 795 875
Mishandled baggage 539 624
Reservation issues 415 318
Denied boarding 281 300
Ticketing / refund issues 230 274
Baggage allowance 160 117
Diverted flight 150 104
Missed connections 146 125
Schedule changes 144 99
In-flight services 133 121
Missed departure 132 -
Seating 102 105
Taxes, fees and charges 93 32
Special needs 64 56
Documents 58 42
Ground services 53 41
Check-in problems 52 68
Fares 39 57
Security 37 51
Other 245 191
Total 5953 5582
Missed departure was not categorised in 2007/08.

6
Telephone enquiries in 2008/09
Type of enquiry
Number of enquiries
2008/09 2007/08
Cancellations 1685 1545
Delays 734 691
Mishandled baggage 681 756
Reservation issues 610 410
Ticketing / refund issues 391 395
Denied boarding 299 257
Schedule changes 238 147
Airline failure 231 98
Taxes, fees and charges 158 70
Baggage allowance 132 91
Missed connections 129 107
In-flight services 107 92
Diverted flight 105 90
Special needs 77 63
Missed departure 69 -
Documents 68 65
Fares 61 94
Seating 54 98
Ground services 46 69
Check-in problems 46 59
Other 433 298
Total 6354 5495
Missed departure was not categorised in 2007/08.

7
Complaints under Regulation EC 261/2004 on compensation and assistance
for denied boarding, cancellation and delays
Under Regulation EC 261/2004, the AUC is designated as the complaints
handling body for passengers departing from UK airports, whilst the CAA is
the designated enforcement body.
We received 2919 written complaints that could be categorised as coming
under Regulation EC 261/2004, compared to 2928 the year before. A
breakdown of the number of complaints by type is in the table below.
Type of complaint 2008/09 2007/08
Cancellations 1968 1896
Delays 681 790
Denied boarding 252 242
Downgrading 18 (not categorised)
Total 2919 2928
As with 2007/08, written complaints under the Regulation accounted for about
half of the total complaints we received last year. However, the number of
complaints under the Regulation decreased very slightly (in comparison to an
11% increase in overall complaints).
Delays
We are pleased to report that complaints about delays decreased for the third
year running. Last year we received 681 complaints compared to 790 in
2007/08, and 1969 in 2005/6, the first full year after the Regulation came into
force. We like to think that this is a sign that passengers are increasingly
getting what they should be entitled to under the Regulation following a delay.
However, complaints to us show that a number of airlines still continue to
sometimes flout the rules (whether intentionally or not) when a flight is
delayed.
Cancellations
Complaints about cancellations increased slightly in 2008/09 compared to
2007/08. However, we are making headway in getting redress for passengers
in terms of compensation. This is something which has often been difficult to
achieve because under Regulation EC 261/2004 airlines do not have to pay
compensation when a flight is cancelled under “extraordinary circumstances”,
which airlines claim tends to be on
most occasions. Last year we
managed to get compensation for
128 complainants who contacted
us compared to 60 the year before.
We had particular success in
persuading one airline to

8
compensate a number of passengers for cancellations caused by “crew
shortages” – we argued that this was foreseeable (and therefore not an
“extraordinary” circumstance) and could be prevented by rostering extra
backup staff to cover for any shortages.
Our success with these types of complaints and the recent European Court of
Justice ruling on the “Wallentin” case (see box below) gives us renewed
optimism that passengers will be in a better position in the future to pursue
their right to compensation when their flight is cancelled.
Summary of European Court of Justice Judgement C-549/07- Wallentin – Hermann
22 December 2008
Background
Mrs Wallentin-Hermann’s flight from Vienna to Brindlisi on Alitalia was cancelled as a
result of an engine defect which had been discovered the day before during a check.
Following the airline’s refusal to pay her compensation, Mrs Wallentin-Hermann went to
court in Austria. The Commercial Court, Vienna, made a reference to the Court of Justice
of the European Communities about whether the technical problems which led to the
cancellation of the flight were covered by ‘extraordinary circumstances’ under Regulation
(EC) No 261/2004 and therefore would exempt Alitalia from the obligation to pay
compensation.
Judgement
The Court of Justice found that “in the light of the specific conditions in which air travel
takes place and the degree of technological sophistication of aircraft, airlines are
confronted as a matter of course in the exercise of their activity with various technical
problems to which the operation of those aircraft inevitably gives rise. The resolution of a
technical problem caused by failure to maintain an aircraft must therefore be regarded as
inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier’s activity. Consequently, technical
problems which come to light during maintenance of aircraft or on account of failure to
carry out such maintenance do not constitute, in themselves, ‘extraordinary
circumstances’.”
However, it did not rule out altogether that technical problems could be considered
“extraordinary circumstances”. It suggested that problems that stemmed from events
“which are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned
and are beyond its actual control” might be considered “exceptional circumstances”. For
example, if a fleet of the aircraft were affected by a hidden manufacturing defect which
impinged on flight safety.
A passenger had a reservation for a flight from the Isle of Man to Birmingham.
Unfortunately her flight was cancelled due to technical difficulties. The airline
subsequently refused her claim for compensation. We took up her case with the
airline and argued that, in light of the Wallentin ruling, the passenger was due
£250 in compensation under Regulation EC261/2004. The airline subsequently
paid up.

9
Other issues
Reservation issues
Last year we received 415 written complaints about reservation issues,
compared to 318 the previous year. The complaints covered a number of
problems concerning making or changing a reservation. This included
passengers being charged twice for a booking, incorrect names or dates
being entered into the booking, and general confusion for consumers about
the fees airlines charged to change reservations.
We had hoped that we would have seen a decrease in complaints about
reservation issues following the publication of our report on buying tickets
online in May (see page 13). But instead complaints have increased
significantly. This is
disappointing. But maybe we
shouldn’t be surprised; the
increasing number of bookings
(and changes to reservations)
made online, combined with
continual tinkering by airlines of
their booking systems are going
to create problems sometimes.
Airline failure
The financial failure of a number of airlines last year accounted for a
significant increase in telephone enquiries about this issue. Last year we
received 231 calls about airline failure compared to 98 the year before. In
addition, there were 5512 hits on the advice page on financial protection on
the AUC website compared to 2155 the year before. There were 1242 hits in
April alone, following the failure of Oasis Hong Kong Airlines in that month.
However, we only received 27 written complaints about this issue. This is
probably because there is little we can do for passengers who find themselves
stuck abroad or out of pocket
following an airline going bust,
apart from offer advice over the
phone or through our website.
Unless passengers are covered by
their credit card or travel insurance
they are unlikely to get their
money back even with our help
(see page 16).

10
Schedule changes
Last year we received a total of 382 complaints and enquiries about schedule
changes compared to 246 the year before. Complaints to the AUC show that
schedule changes can have a considerable impact on passengers’ trips. In
some cases, they can undermine the whole reason for the trip in the first
place. For example, a passenger might miss a business meeting or a family
celebration. It can also leave them out of pocket if accommodation or
transfers have been prepaid.
A passenger arrived at Prestwick for a flight
to Girona only to find that the flight had
departed five hours earlier. The airline staff
at the airport said that he should have been
advised of the schedule change by email.
However, the passenger had received no
notification. He had to buy a new ticket for
£166 for the next available flight which was
the next day. And it meant that he could not
use the hotel in Girona which he had already
paid for. He wrote to the airline but all they
would offer was refund of his original flight
of £80. He therefore wrote to us. After we
had taken the complaint up with the airline,
he received a refund of £166 for cost of the
replacement ticket and £50 for the hotel
reservation.
Many of the complaints to us
are from passengers who have
not been offered the option of a
refund following a “significant”
schedule change (see page 12
for discussion on the term
“significant”). Another common
complaint is that passengers
have not been advised of the
change and have therefore
missed their flight as a result.
The increase in complaints
prompted us to look closer at
this issue last year (see page
12).
Missed departure
Last year we introduced a new category of complaint – missed departure.
This was for complaints we received from passengers who had missed their
flight because they had arrived late at check-in or at the gate and had to buy a
new ticket or were out of pocket for the flight they had missed. It is difficult to
compare the numbers from last year with previous years because we
categorised such complaints differently – for example, under ground services
or security (that is, the purported reason for missed departure). But we
introduced this new category because we considered it to be a significant
issue in itself.
Airlines’ conditions of carriage generally
state that if a passenger arrives late for
check-in or at the gate then the airline
reserves the right to cancel the
reservation with no refund. This is even
if it is not the fault of the passenger – for
example, if they had got stuck in a
queue at security or the flight monitor
was showing the wrong gate.

11
We are pleased that at least one airline offers a “rescue fee” which
passengers can pay in order to be rebooked onto the next available flight. We
would like to see other airlines adopt a similar policy. However, we
understand why they might not wish to do so; it may let passengers get
around restrictions put on tickets and undermine airline pricing structures.
But we hope that such concerns could be overcome; possibly by setting a
“rescue fee” at an amount that would not encourage passengers to use it to
get round ticket restrictions. We plan to keep an eye on this issue. But it may
be that airlines’ increasing use of checking-in online and at airport kiosks
instead of check-in desks will cut out many of the delays that cause
passengers to miss flights.

12
Representing passengers
Consumer protection issues
This section looks at issues where the AUC has carried out proactive
advocacy work on behalf of consumers. Much of our work on consumer
protection issues is generated from complaints.
Schedule changes
Last autumn we carried out an online
sweep of the conditions of carriage
of a sample of airlines to find out if
their condition on schedule changes
complied with the Unfair Terms in
Consumer Contracts Regulations
(UTCCRs) (see box). The results of
our sweep shows that policies on
schedule changes vary between
different carriers (see table on page
13).
Most carriers that belong to the
International Air Transport
Association (IATA) offer passengers
a refund for a significant change.
Following a 1999 complaint from the
AUC to the Office of Fair Trading
(OFT) about airlines’ conditions of
carriage, the OFT forced IATA to
amend its Recommended Practice 1724
(RP1724) on airlines’ Conditions of
Carriage to bring it into line with the
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts
Regulations. One of the amendments
was to give passengers the option of
choosing a refund if the schedule
change was “significant”. This
amendment has helped many
passengers get a refund following a
schedule change.
One airline even offers refunds following all schedule changes. However, a
number of airlines do not offer passengers the option of a refund of their
tickets, or only do so under strict criteria. The clauses on schedule changes in
these airlines’ conditions could therefore be considered unfair under the
UTCCRs.
We are pleased to say that as a
result of our discussions with two
airlines following our sweep, one
airline has changed its condition
on schedule changes so that
passengers can now get a refund
following a “significant” schedule
change. The other carrier has
made a commitment to do so. But
other airlines continue to not offer
refunds. We therefore plan more
work on this issue this year.

13
Clauses on schedule changes in the conditions of carriage of selected airlines
EasyJet
Ryanair
British Airways
BMI
Flybe
Jet2
Airline Policy (as of August 2008)
Fly Globespan
Aer Lingus
Thomsonfly
Monarch
Bmibaby
Virgin
Continental Airlines
KLM
Emirates
Air Southwest
Eastern Airways
Air France
Online booking errors
No refund
Refund if change is more than three hours
Refund if change is significant (RP1724)
Refund if fail to operate “reasonably according to
schedule”
Refund if change is significant (RP1724)
RP1724 but only refund return fare if return is within
48 hours of outbound
No refund (except for general refund policies)
Refund if change is more than two hours
Refund if change is significant (RP1724)
No refund
Refund if change is significant (RP1724)
Refund if change is significant (RP1724)
Refund but not at passenger option
No refund
Refund for all schedule changes
Refund if change is significant (RP1724)
Refund if change is significant (RP1724)
“If change is not convenient for passenger and is not in
a position to offer a more suitable reservation, the
passenger may benefit from a refund”
Taken from AUC research, October 2008
In June, we published a report on the potential pitfalls to passengers when
booking tickets online. We published the report because we were becoming
increasingly disappointed by the way that some airlines handled complaints
where passengers had encountered problems booking tickets on the internet.
We felt that the risk of something going wrong was being loaded too much
onto passengers. Too many times they were left out of pocket following
problems with bookings.
We accepted that an error would sometimes be the fault of the person making
the booking and the airline, under its ticket conditions, could then insist that
they buy a new ticket. But we wanted airlines not to penalise passengers
unduly for innocent mistakes (or seek to profit from the errors). In a number of
the complaints we received, the airline had not lost out financially and the
passenger had not gained any advantage (for example, if an error had caused
a passenger to have more than one booking for a flight, the person could not
use this ticket twice).

14
Besides, we suggested that it was often difficult
to tell where the fault lay. Many of the problems
where it appeared that there had been an error
could have been a result of a glitch somewhere
in the airline’s reservation system. Passengers
might therefore have been penalised when the
error was not their fault.
Our report aimed to both encourage
passengers to notify an airline of a problem as
soon as they could (by following instructions on
the airline’s website if available) and to
persuade airlines to change their policies
towards passengers who encountered
problems when booking on the internet. We
sent a copy of the report, with an
accompanying letter, to the chief executives of eight major UK carriers asking
them to review their policies. We asked them to consider putting into place
policies that gave more consideration to passengers who had difficulties
booking online. We recommended they introduce a “24-hour rule” (see below)
whereby passengers could cancel bookings within 24 hours of making the
reservation.
Ale
We understand that the
A 24-hour rule
We understand that the majority of airline tickets are non-refundable
and accept that airlines should be able to charge to rectify booking
errors under some circumstances; for example, if the error only comes
to light very close to departure. That is why we believe that an airline
rule giving passengers the chance to make changes or claim a refund
(even if subject to a small administration fee) within 24 hours of making
a booking would provide passengers with at least some protection
against being out of pocket. At least one airline already has such a term
in its conditions.
We received a positive response from most airlines – some airlines even
introduced a 24-hour rule into their terms and conditions as a result of our
report. Others took on board our views and said they would put in place
internal policies along the lines of a 24-hour rule. They would also be
generally more sympathetic to their customers. We will be keeping an eye on
this issue and plan more work on this issue in the year to come. But we hope
that such problems will diminish as passengers become more accustomed to
internet shopping and as the online booking systems become more reliable.

15
Settlements to passengers for mishandled baggage
In March, we published a report on how
airlines had handled claims for compensation
from passengers for mishandled baggage
since the Montreal Convention came into force
in 2004. The report was based on the
complaints we had received in that period. We
concluded that the implementation of the
Montreal Convention had not brought about
the benefits, in terms of settlements for
mishandled baggage, that we had hoped for.
We suggested that the risks associated with a
bag being delayed, damaged or lost were still
loaded too much on the passenger.
We found that airlines tended to act in a way
similar to insurance companies when settling
claims for lost and damaged baggage. They generally expected passengers
to provide receipts as proof of ownership for lost baggage, something which
was not always practical. We thought that this was inappropriate; airlines,
unlike insurance companies, were responsible for the bag being mishandled.
And with delayed bags, we found that airlines often limited the amount a
passenger could spend buying replacement items. We understood that
airlines might want to make sure passengers spent reasonably but we
considered that they should offer guidance on this and not arbitrary limits.
We are pleased to say that our report had an immediate effect. On the 17 th
March, Vice-President Tajani, the EU’s Commissioner for Transport noticed
our report and published a press release stating that he would
“take immediate measures on passenger rights starting with an investigation
on the scale of the phenomenon. The European Commission's Directorate-
General for Transport and Energy will ask today for information from the
Airports International Council, and the Association of European Airlines and
other parties concerned. The Commission will also contact AUC that was the
first to reveal this information”.
He said that the European Commission would then evaluate “the effective
application of Regulation 889/2002 (Montreal Convention) on luggage loss
and damage” and assess whether any improvements to the Regulation were
required.
The Commission has since contacted the relevant bodies in Member States,
including the AUC, to request information on airline settlements under the
Montreal Convention. We have sent to them a copy of our report and details
of the complaints we have received. We look forward to helping the
Commission further with its investigations.

16
Financial protection
Last year the failures of Oasis Hong Kong Airlines, Zoom and XL, amongst
other airlines, left thousands of British passengers stranded abroad or, for
those who were yet to travel, out of pocket. This is because there is no
financial protection against the failure of schedule airlines in the UK as there
is for tour operators (under the ATOL scheme).
When an airline fails, passengers can get their airfare refunded from their
credit card company under the Consumer Credit Act if they made their
booking by credit card. But purchases made on credit cards must be above
£100 and be made directly with the supplier. And many passengers do not
pay for flight tickets with a credit card; they may not own one or they may wish
to avoid credit card charges. Alternatively passengers can get their money
back through their travel insurance. But few travel insurance policies offer
cover against the failure of scheduled airlines and, of those that do, some
have exclusions that appear to potentially dilute the cover.
For a number of years, we have called for government to introduce a financial
protection scheme for the failure of scheduled airlines similar to the ATOL
scheme for tour operators. In 2005, we supported the CAA’s detailed proposal
for a financial protection scheme for scheduled airlines. But the Government
declined to take forward the CAA’s proposals.
In October, our chairman wrote to Geoff Hoon, the then Secretary of State for
Transport, about this issue. In her letter she suggested that the current
economic climate and the increasingly competitive nature of the industry
raised the spectre of a greater likelihood of airline failure. This, together with a
background of consumers’ general lack of understanding of financial
protection, had made air passengers increasingly vulnerable to the impact of
an airline’s failure. Further, we suggested that this was clearly demonstrated
by the numbers of passengers seemingly left out of pocket or stranded abroad
following recent failures.
The AUC’s previous position in respect of scheduled airline failure has been
that protection should be via a flat fee levy on all passengers to be paid into a
common fund. This levy should cover passengers for reimbursement of
monies and for those already abroad, completion of holiday and return home.
We continue to hold this view and urge that detailed consideration be given to
extending financial protection for air passengers, to include the failure of
scheduled airlines.
Despite the current economic climate and pressure from us and other industry
stakeholders, the Government shows no sign of introducing a scheme.
Perhaps our best hope may be to look to Europe. Last year, the European
Commission commissioned a study to consider the impact on EU consumers
of airline bankruptcies based on an analysis of the causes and situations
surrounding aviation bankruptcies in the EU since 2000.

17
Supplementary charges
One of the most noticeable trends to have emerged in the airline industry in
the last few years has been the increase in the number of supplementary
charges for services that would previously have been paid for as part of the
ticket. In the last year, many airlines have introduced an array of new charges
and increased existing ones.
We said in our annual report last year that we did not automatically consider
such charges as bad news for passengers provided the charges were optional
and for specific services. For passengers who did not need these services, it
might mean the price they pay for their flight was lower as a result. We
accepted it was an evolution of the market in response to the advent of
no-frills air travel. And we concluded that as long as the charges remained
optional then passengers should not be concerned at this development.
We still hold this view. But complaints to the AUC show that not all
passengers share it. Written complaints about taxes, fees and charges
increased by nearly three times last year, mainly due to an increase in
complaints about supplementary charges. Most complaints tended to be
about the level of the charge rather than the principle; for example, many
passengers considered that the credit and debit card charges were
disproportionate to the cost to the airline of processing their booking. And they
were concerned by how much card charges had increased in recent years
(we compared the card charges of five airlines in October to four years
previously - see table below). Complainants also felt other charges were often
not good value, particularly reservation change fees and baggage fees.
Airline
February 2004 October 2008
Credit debit Credit Debit
British None None £4 per ticket None
Airways
BMI £4 per person None £4 per person None
EasyJet £4 per booking None 2.5% of
booking
(minimum
£4.95)
£1.95 per
booking
Flybe
Ryanair
£1.75 per
person per
sector
£1.75 per
person per
sector
£0.40 per
person per
sector
£0.40 per
person per
sector
£3.50 per
person per
sector
£4 per person
per sector
£1.50 per
person per
sector
£4 per person
per sector
Taken from AUC research, October2008
We understood these concerns. But we pointed out to these passengers that
the charges were optional. Some airlines did not charge for using credit or
debit cards and even those that did allowed passengers to use a prepaid card
for free. In addition, many airlines continued to include services, such as for
baggage handling and seat allocation, as part of the fare. And being allowed

18
to change the date or the name of a reservation for a fee was better than not
being able to make a change at all and having to buy a new ticket, which was
previously the case with most airlines.
Consultations and Inquiries
In addition to our primarily proactive advocacy work generated from
complaints, we represent the interest of passengers through responding to
consultations and inquiries. This section summarises a selection of the
consultations. A full list is on page 22.
Aviation Duty
In April, we responded to the Treasury’s consultation on proposals to
introduce an Aviation Duty to replace Air Passenger Duty (APD). The
Government proposed to replace APD with a per plane tax on the grounds
that this would better reflect the environmental impact of individual aircraft.
We said that we had no objection
in principle to environmental levies
or taxes, provided there was a
clear connection between the
charges and the mitigation of the
impact of aviation on the
environment. But we had doubts
whether a per-plane tax would
achieve this better than APD.
This was because the burden on
airlines, and therefore potentially the amount payable by passengers, would
be dependent on the destination of only the ex UK flight, in contrast to APD
which is dependent on the final destination. Passengers going to long haul
destinations might therefore have been more likely to choose to fly via a
European hub airport instead of on a direct long haul flight from a UK airport.
We suggested that this could potentially reduce the overall amount of tax
collected by the Government.
The Government has since dropped plans to introduce the tax and instead
plans to increase APD from November 2009.
Airport regulation
Review of the economic regulation of airports in the UK
In October, the Department for Transport (DfT) published a consultation on a
review of economic regulation of airports in the UK. In its review, the DfT
invited comments on its initial thinking on the rationale for intervention in the
airport market and on a regulatory regime that was fit for purpose over the
long term.

19
The AUC’s principal concern was for the interests of passengers to be taken
fully into account in all regulatory decisions. We believed that that this would
be best achieved by giving the CAA a primary duty to consumers. We
questioned whether airlines would always make decisions in the best interests
of passengers – and, by extension, whether they could always be relied upon
to act as proxy for passengers’ interests in discussion of airport charges.
Different airlines would have different incentives in respect of airport
investment decisions such as on timing, scale or quality. And those views may
not always be completely aligned with their passengers’ aspirations. We
suggested therefore that there was, in theory at least, an inherent potential
conflict between shareholder profit aspirations and passenger interests in
service quality.
In addition, we suggested that regulation
was only part of the solution. Good
passenger experience at an airport
depended equally on good management
by airport companies and on the
Government playing its part in the
provision of surface access infrastructure
and adequate resources for border
control.
In March, the DfT published a further,
more detailed, consultation on the review
of economic regulation. We submitted a
response on the 2 nd June, a copy of which
can be found on our website.
Price control proposals for Stansted Airport charges for 2009-2014
In December, the CAA published a consultation on its proposals for the
setting of new price controls at Stansted Airport for the period 1 April 2009 to
31 March 2014. Our major interest in the consultation concerned the CAA’s
proposals on service quality in response to the Competition Commission’s
(CC)’s finding that BAA had failed in its provision of airport services of
adequate quality.
We agreed with the CAA that the evidence put forward by the CC was
sufficiently compelling for the CAA to propose to introduce a Service Quality
Regime at Stansted similar to the ones already in place at Heathrow and
Gatwick. We considered that these regimes had provided passengers with a
transparent and measurable benefit of price cap regulation.
In March, the CAA published its decision on setting a price cap for Stansted
from 2009-14. It introduced a regime with a set of service performance
standards and rebates under which the airport operator would reimburse
airlines up to seven per cent of airport charges where the airport’s service
performance fell short of the defined standards. The CAA decided to base

20
two-thirds of the standards and rebates on service performance in passenger
security processing.
CAA proposals for modifications to the Statement of Standards and Rebates
to include three additional elements
In March, the CAA published a consultation proposing to introduce three new
elements to the Service Quality Regime at Gatwick Airport – transfer search,
staff searches and control post.
We welcomed the CAA’s proposal to take into account the smaller number of
transfer passengers at the airport when setting standards for queue times at
transfer areas. We considered that it was not in the consumer interest for
certain areas of the airport to be over resourced if increases in airport charges
(due to additional staffing) were passed on to passengers by airlines through
increases in airfares. We also welcomed the proposals to provide incentives
to shorten queue times at staff search areas and control posts. We suggested
that this could help improve punctuality because delays to staff in getting to
their posts could delay departures.
At the end of March, the CAA
published the responses to the
consultation and its decision. All
respondents to the consultation
agreed to the introduction of the new
standards and the scope and
methods used to measure them. The
CAA has therefore introduced the
three new elements.
HM Revenue and Customs / UK Border consultation on a draft code of
practice on customs examination of baggage in the absence of passenger
In July, HM Revenue and Customs and UK Border consulted on a draft code
of practice on customs examination of baggage in the absence of passenger.
This would set out the circumstances in which customs officers would carry
out targeted checks on baggage in the absence of their owners and a
framework of authorisation and supervision.
Our main interest in this consultation was in making sure that innocent
passengers received compensation for damage or delay to their baggage
following searches by customs officers. We welcomed the commitment in the
draft Code to compensate passengers. But we had concerns that details of
the damage, as noted by officers, might not be released as evidence in order
to help passengers with claims with airlines. We were also concerned that the
draft Code had no provisions for compensation for bags delayed by the
searches.

21
Home Office / Department for Transport consultation on airport policing,
funding and security planning
In July, the Home Office and Department for Transport (DfT) consulted on
their proposals to make airport security planning, and the funding and
activities of police at airports, more transparent and strategic in nature. This
was with a view to putting airport policing and security planning proposals on
a legislative footing as part of the Transport Security Bill.
The consultation was primarily targeted at industry. But passengers have a
direct interest in airport security. We therefore considered that the proposals
should reflect the need for the travelling public to be protected from the range
of security threats. We welcomed the objectives of the proposals to bring
together the conflicting interests of stakeholders to produce a co-ordinated
security regime across all UK airports. This would ensure there was a wideranging
input into Airport Security Plans and Police Service Agreements at all
airports in the UK.
In September, the DfT published the responses to the consultation and its
decision. Other responses to the consultation also highlighted the need for
flexibility in the framework in order to bring together all stakeholders. The DfT
has amended the draft legislation to provide a “more flexible framework which
can be applied to all airports large and small”. It has also decided that, in
order to make sure all views are taken into account, it, rather than an
independent expert panel, should “take responsibility for resolving disputes
over the contents or implementation of Airport Security Plans and Police
Service Agreements”.

22
Consultations and Inquiries
Civil Aviation Authority
Consultation on airport regulation; price control review - price control
proposals for Stansted Airport
Consultation on Gatwick Airport; CAA proposals for modification to the
Statement of Standards and Rebates to include three additional elements
Department for Transport
Consultation on access to air travel for disabled persons and persons with
reduced mobility – Code of Practice
Review of economic regulation of airports
HM Treasury
Aviation Duty : A consultation
HM Revenue and Customs / UK Border
Consultation on a draft code of practice on customs examination of baggage
in the absence of passenger
Home Office / Department for Transport
Consultation on airport policing, funding and security planning
Department for Communities and Local Government
Consultation on the list of statutory consultees for National Policy Statement
Transport Select Committee
Inquiry into the future of aviation
(all AUC consultation responses are available on the AUC website –
www.auc.org.uk)
AUC Reports
Buying tickets online – an AUC report on the pitfalls of booking air tickets over
the internet
The luggage lottery – an AUC report into compensation payments to
passengers for mishandled baggage

23
External relations
Media
Last year we gave 407 media briefings, compared to 308 the year before,
including participation in 80 TV and radio interviews. Most of our media work
is reactive, as befits a small team that does not include a full time press
officer. The increase was partly due to the large number of aviation stories in
the news throughout the year. It was also a result of coverage generated from
our four press releases over the year. We aim to be proactive in getting our
message out to the public through the media. We think that this is important
for many reasons. It helps put issues into the public domain and therefore
bring them to the attention of both regulators and airlines. And it also helps us
to get advice out to passengers, both in terms of how they can to avoid
potential pitfalls when travelling and what to do if something should go wrong.
Committees, working groups and coalitions
Aberdeen Airport Consultative Committee
Air Transport Action Group (ATAG)
Air Travel Insolvency Protection Advisory Committee (ATIPAC)
Aviation Health Working Group
Consular Stakeholder Panel
Disabled Person Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) Aviation working
Group
External Advisory Group (implementation of the White paper on the Future of
Air Transport)
Flying Matters
Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee
National Aviation Security Committee (associate member)
National Air Traffic Services (NATS) Stakeholder Council
External visits (full Council)
National Air Traffic Services Headquarters, Swanwick, Hampshire
Airbus Headquarters, Toulouse, France

24
Guest speakers at AUC Council meetings
Alex Bristol, General Manager, National Air Traffic Services, Swanwick
Janice Fisher, Manager Cabin Safety office, CAA
Kieran Hanks, Economics and Regulation Director, BAA
Liz Savage, Managing Director, Monarch Scheduled
AUC lunch
On October 16 th , we welcomed Willie Walsh, Chief Executive of British
Airways, to speak to invited guests from the aviation industry at an AUC
lunch.

25
THE AUC IN 2008/09
Members (as of March 31 st 2009)
Tina Tietjen – Chairman
Tina Tietjen lives in London. She currently holds a number of non-executive
positions in both the public and private sectors, and also provides consultancy
services on training. She was previously joint managing director of Video Arts
Ltd, an international training business and has recently become chair of the
Willow Foundation which provides special days for seriously or terminally ill
people between 16 and 40. She has travelled extensively throughout her
career and continues to do so on a regular basis.
Lynette Braithwaite
Lynette Braithwaite is from Australia but has been based in the UK for the last
twenty years, although for eight of these she lived in Indonesia, the UAE and
Russia. She is a qualified solicitor and has practised in the legal profession in
various capacities. She is a member of both local and school representative
bodies. She travels regularly by air, both long and short haul, for leisure
(regularly visiting family spread around the world), and for her husband’s
business.
David Brew
David Brew lives in Edinburgh. He is a career civil servant, most recently in a
senior capacity in the Scottish Government, though he is also a past chief
executive of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland. He has
worked in the UK civil service and as a European Commission official. He has
travelled extensively by air, both internationally and within the UK, over many
years, for business and leisure.
John Charlesworth
John Charlesworth lives in Lincolnshire. He has spent the majority of his
working life visiting and living in Africa and other parts of the developing world.
He now runs a company looking after vehicle fleet management for the United
Nations and aid and development organisations’ field projects. Due to the
nature of his work, he travels extensively to remote destinations on a wide
variety of airlines, as often as not in the economy section.
Gillian Dale
Gillian Dale has many years experience of teaching travel and tourism
subjects in further education. She is currently an educational consultant and
works as an advisor with teachers in schools colleges and training providers.

26
She has written several text books for travel and tourism courses, most of
which have sections on the aviation industry. She flies regularly, particularly in
Europe.
Phillip Dann
Phillip Dann lives in London. He is a solicitor advising in telecommunications
law and public international law. He worked at Inmarsat, the sea, air and land
mobile satellite agency. Later on, he was a partner at Bird & Bird in the City.
In 1993, he had a stroke and aphasia, and now he is a trustee of Speakability,
the aphasic charity.
Arthur de Frisching
Arthur de Frisching lives in London. Of Swiss background he has worked in
the public sector in both executive and non-executive roles. He has travelled
extensively in connection with human rights work and now flies mainly for
leisure, including to South Africa where he has family connections.
Nigel Evans
Nigel Evans lives in Sunderland and is currently deputy dean at Teesside
Business School, part of Teesside University, having previously worked for
fifteen years at Northumbria University. His writing and teaching focuses on
strategic changes in the international travel industry. Prior to joining academia
he had a varied commercial career with a tour operator. He travels regularly
by air both for work and leisure.
David Fraser
David Fraser lives in Edinburgh, and was a chief executive in the public sector
in Scotland. He is chairman of the Castle Rock Edinvar Housing Association,
Chairman of the Scottish Refugee Council, and a member of the UK Ethics
Committee of the Department for Work and Pensions. He has a particular
interest in how organisations can learn from complaints to improve the quality
of service delivery.
Jeanette Hebbert
Jeannette Hebbert lives in Oxford. For over twenty-one years she was a
headteacher of large comprehensives in London and Oxfordshire. She now
works as an educational consultant for the Academies Trust and helps to
coordinate the work of Higher Performing Schools. She is a Fellow of the
Royal Society of the Arts and is a member of the Court of Oxford Brookes
University. She travels extensively to the USA and Europe.
Richard Lambert
Richard Lambert lives in Cambridgeshire and is a civil engineer and transport

27
planner who, for 20 years, was responsible for all planning and development
at Birmingham International Airport. He retired in late 2001, but continues to
lecture, write and provide consultancy services on transport and aviation
matters, and continues to travel frequently by air for both business and
pleasure.
Eric Melrose
Eric Melrose lives in Aberdeen. He had a forty-four year career in local
government, and was Director of Planning and Environment Services with
Aberdeenshire County Council immediately before his retirement. He held a
number of other senior positions, mostly related to Trading Standards, and a
number of national appointments with the Trading Standard Institute and
Lacors. He worked on the development of Consumer Direct in Scotland. He
travels frequently by air for business and leisure purposes.
Chris Parker
Chris lives in Buckinghamshire. He has spent the majority of his career in the
travel industry and has also worked for BMI, SITA and Galileo International.
More recently he has been responsible for purchasing global travel and
events for Jaguar and Land Rover. Currently he works as an independent
purchasing consultant. He travels extensively for business and pleasure.
Francesca Phang-Lee
Francesca Phang-Lee lives in Oxford. She is a lawyer and worked in an
inhouse capacity for a number of years with General Electric (USA) and Shell
Asia-Pacific. She travelled in a professional capacity on a regular basis
throughout the Asia-Pacific region and to the USA. She continues to work as
a lawyer, but also works in a voluntary capacity with local charities. She still
loves travelling and now flies regularly to short haul and long haul destinations
for leisure with her young family.
Fiona Raje
Fiona Raje lives in Northumberland. She has worked in academic, research
and operational roles in transport and has a doctorate from the University of
Oxford. She has written books on transport and ethnicity and user
experiences of the contemporary transport system. Having grown up in the
Caribbean, she has travelled by air for many years.
Kathryn Talintyre
Kathryn Talintyre lives in Essex and spent twelve years pursuing a career in
marketing and management consultancy. Following a period of volunteering
at the local Adult Community College, she now teaches Skills for Life
numeracy to adults. She travels regularly by air with her family.

28
Secretariat (as of March 31 st 2009)
Simon Evans - Chief Executive
James Fremantle - Industry Affairs Manager
Frances Walther - Consumer Affairs Manager (part time)
Tina Dunkin - Consumer Affairs Supervisor (part time)
Taruna Mistry - Consumer Affairs Supervisor (Operations)
Paola Accardo - Consumer Affairs Officer
Adrian Ghilotti - Consumer Affairs Officer
Andrew Thompson - Consumer Affairs Officer
Lucy Wickens - Consumer Affairs Officer
Monica Bonello - Secretary / Administrator
Alicia Mathurin-Greene - Administrative Assistant
Nick Worrell - Administrative Assistant

29
Terms of Reference
Purpose
The Air Transport Users Council (AUC) will complement and assist the Civil
Aviation Authority (CAA) in its duties to further the reasonable interests of
users of air transport services.
Functions
• To investigate complaints against the suppliers of air transport services
where the person or body aggrieved has not been able to obtain
satisfaction from the supplier concerned and to seek a resolution where
appropriate.
• To advise passengers, either directly or through the media, on how to
make the best use of air transport services including, where appropriate,
the publication and promotion of educational and statistical material.
• To formulate and promote policies furthering the reasonable interests of
passengers and to represent them to regulatory authorities (both in
general and in relation to specific proposals), service providers and the
media.
• At the AUC’s discretion to co-operate with or be a member of any airport
consultative committee.
• At the AUC’s discretion to co-operate with or be a member of any
consumer group, national or international, which can further the
reasonable interests of passengers.
• To carry out or commission research in support of the above objectives, if
appropriate.
Finance and Accountability
• The functions of the AUC will be funded by the CAA. The AUC, consistent
with its purpose, is permitted to obtain additional project funding and cofunding
from other sources.
• The AUC shall make an annual report to the CAA and publish it. The
annual report shall include a financial summary.
• Operational and financial objectives and performance indicators shall be
agreed from time to time with the CAA. The AUC is subject to normal CAA
internal audit requirements.
• The CAA undertakes to respect the AUC’s freedom to propose changes in
the Terms of Reference, determine policies and establish priorities in the
performance of its functions within the framework of the agreed
operational and financial objectives.
Membership

30
• The AUC shall consist of a Chairman and not more than 19 and not less
than 11 Members.
• Appointment of the Chairman will be made by the CAA for such period as
considered appropriate.
• Appointment of Members will be made by the CAA on the advice of the
Chairman of the AUC. Such appointments will be for a term of three years
which may be renewed for a maximum of one further term of three years.
However, the fact that a Member has served for a maximum period will not
necessarily preclude his or her serving as Chairman beyond the end of
that time.
• No employee of the CAA may be a Member of the AUC.
• Members will be appointed as individuals and not as delegates of any
particular interest group. They should represent as wide a range as
possible of personal experience as users of air transport services.

31
Financial summary
The AUC receives its funding from the Civil Aviation Authority, as an Auxiliary
Group within the CAA corporate structure. Secretariat staff are CAA salaried
employees on standard CAA conditions of employment.
The AUC budget for 2008/09 was £784,000 comprising the following (in
£000):
Staff 509
Travel & Subsistence* 42
Other operating 65
Accommodation & IT 168
Total 784
*Staff travel and Members' expenses.

32
GLOSSARY
APD Air Passenger Duty
ATOL Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing
AUC Air Transport Users Council
CAA Civil Aviation Authority
CC Competition Commission
DfT Department for Transport
ECJ European Court of Justice
EU European Union
IATA International Air Transport Association
OFT Office of Fair Trading
UTCCRs Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations

Air Transport Users Council
CAA House, 45-59 Kingsway, London, WC2B 6TE
Telephone: 020 7240 6061 Fax: 020 7240 7071
Website: www.auc.org.uk