Complaints and enquiries - Air Transport Users Council

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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.
Page 1: AIR TRANSPORT USERS COUNCIL ANNUAL
Page 4 and 5: 2 CHAIRMAN’S INTRODUCTION There h
Page 6 and 7: 4 REVIEW OF THE YEAR Complaints and
Page 8 and 9: 6 Telephone enquiries in 2008/09 Ty
Page 10 and 11: 8 compensate a number of passengers
Page 12 and 13: 10 Schedule changes Last year we re
Page 14 and 15: 12 Representing passengers Consumer
Page 18 and 19: 16 Financial protection Last year t
Page 20 and 21: 18 to change the date or the name o
Page 22 and 23: 20 two-thirds of the standards and
Page 24 and 25: 22 Consultations and Inquiries Civi
Page 26 and 27: 24 Guest speakers at AUC Council me
Page 28 and 29: 26 She has written several text boo
Page 30 and 31: 28 Secretariat (as of March 31 st 2
Page 32 and 33: 30 • The AUC shall consist of a C
Page 34: 32 GLOSSARY APD Air Passenger Duty

Complaints and enquiries - Air Transport Users Council

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?