Much of Northern and Western Europe airspace is again closed, for the fourth day running, as the ash cloud slowly drifts south and east.  Current eruptions are not lifting ash high enough to affect continental European airspace, so these effects are from material ejected a few days ago.  Assuming the Eyjafjallajokull volcano continues to slowly quieten, flights are anticipated to resume in a few days time.

In the meantime, millions of people have had their travel disrupted. Airlines, land transport and accommodation are being affected worldwide. Once the ash clears it will take several days at least to clear the backlog of passengers.

As posted previously, a volcanic eruption is an “act of god” and thus airlines are not liable to provide compensation. However in some jurisdications (such as EU regulation 261/2004 for EU-based airlines and all flights from EU), airlines may be responsible for duty of care (ie providing accommodation for stranded passengers).  Travel insurance should also help out, as long as it was purchased before 14 April 2010.

Last Wednesday afternoon a Ryanair flight diverted to a neighbouring airport when it could not land due to thunderstorms at the destination.  Since the airports involved were on different islands, and there was no later ferry (presumably due to the bad weather), this meant passengers spent an unplanned night before getting a ferry to their booked accommodation the next morning.

This all makes for a good news story beat up of how the heartless airline stranded passengers on the wrong island (eg BBC).

It is unfortunate that the other facts were not published. All other flights to the destination airport of Lanzarote, Canary Islands, were also cancelled or diverted that evening. I don’t see how the airline can be blamed for not getting their passengers to Lanzarote until the next day – they cannot control the weather and surely everyone accepts that safety is important?

Under EU reg 261/2004 a delay in arriving at destination due to unforseen bad weather is not compensatable, although the airline must provide accommodation, meals, 2 phone calls and suitable transportation.

There are a lot of things I do not like about Ryanair, but this time I thing the media has it wrong.

Most Lufthansa and Germanwings flights are expected to be disrupted next week. Note, however, that some related airlines’ flights are all operating. This includes Swiss, Austrian, bmi, Brussels Airlines, CityLine, Eurowings, Lufthansa Italia.

Lufthansa has published a schedule of their flights which they anticipate being able to operate. All flights not listed on that schedule between 22 and 25 February are cancelled.

At present they are allowing refunds, rebooking onto other Lufthansa flights (in the same cabin but any available booking class), and heavily restricted rebooking onto non Lufthansa flights (requires same booking class). Hopefully the restrictions on rebooking onto other airlines will soon be eased otherwise there will be a lot of people unable to travel on the days they want to. For domestic German flights, Lufthansa also allows rebooking onto Deutsche Bahn trains.

For the latest information for affected passengers check the link above to Lufthansa’s website.

Airline assistance (EU reg 261/2004)

EU reg 261/2004 articles 5 and 6 apply for cancellations and delays respectively. This means food, 2 phone calls, and accommodation (if necessary) must be provided to passengers whose flights are cancelled or materially delayed. Lufthansa will likely argue that article 7 compensation will not apply due to the exemption for extraordinary circumstances.

When the US Passenger Bill of Rights (PBOR) were published last month I posted a brief mention but did not explain how they benefit flyers and how they have some limitations.

Overall approach

The US rights (link to full text here) are less comprehensive than the corresponding EU rights (EU regulation 261/2004) in that certain standards are left up to airlines to define and publish as policies. Ie the rule is there must be a policy and it must be published, but airlines are free to set their own standards in some respects.

That is not good for consumers. We already have variability in airline contract of carriage which also must be published, but such a miniscule proportion of flyers read them that there really is no competition between airlines to provide terms that are great for their customers.

Onboard on the ground time limited to 3 hours

There are some parts of the PBOR which are relatively set. Airlines cannot keep passengers onboard on the ground for more than 3 hours for domestic flights, or more than a time of their choosing (which must be published) for international flights. There are exemptions where the airport agrees that immediate disembarkation will be highly disruptive to airport operations. This clause is open to interpretation – it could be that airlines routinely are exempt due to inconvenience, or perhaps not.

At congested airports, in poor weather, and in unusual circumstances a rigourous enforcement of the time limit may result in more crowded terminals (boarding delayed if a risk of exceeding the 3 hours), more flight cancellations and reduced flights more generally. I’m not sure this is necessarily good for travellers.

Publish contingency plans

The PBOR has a requirement for airlines to publish contingency plans for every airport they fly to including any diversion airports, and to be accountable to passengers for following those contingency plans.

This seems to me to be a complete waste of time. Either the contingency plans published will be specific and then result in messy litigation afterwards when they are not followed properly, or they will be written as vague as possible to ensure the airline has sufficient flexibility to deal with varying circumstances and thus the airline can never be held accountable for errors in dealing with irregular operations. I much prefer the European approach which sets out what airlines must do at a minimum, for passengers affected by cancellations and delays. The question of how that is achieved is left to each airline to resolve.

Publish on-time performance

Every flight bookable on the airline website must include reference or a link to information on on-time performance of that flight. The PBOR sets out the required stats which includes cancellations as well as significant delays. The Department of Trade (DOT) will monitor flights which have excessively bad on-time performance and take punitive action against the airline (after 4 months with 50+% of flights 30+ minutes late arriving).

It is pleasing to see that DOT recognise that arrival time is more important than departure time. However, these requirements are likely to see even more schedule padding than already exists. While this makes valid connections easier to be made, it does have the disadvantages of making some connections which are currently legal (ie more than minimum connection times) illegal and thus reduces options for travellers.

How much benefit for flyers?

As with the EU regulation 261/2004, how well the US Passenger Bill of Rights works in practice will depend on interpretation by airlines and by the regulator, as well as the regulator’s enforcement (or lack of) of the rules. In the EU the general impression is initially the regulations were not well enforced (airlines routinely using safety and circumstances out of their control exemptions) but it seems to have improved slightly over the past year or so. However, still many airlines do not meet the requirements – for example in the recent weather disruptions there are reports several airlines did not provide their customers with information on their minimum rights nor did they provide those automatically.

So, it probably is up to all the travelling public to be aware of our rights and demand airlines provide them when they are supposed to. Hopefully DOT will publish a handy leaflet which we can carry, much as EU has.

Musings of the Global Traveller
Thoughts, advice and travel news from around the world by a seasoned frequent flyer.

I’m not referring to a flight returning to origin but one that didn’t even leave.

The information from flightstats on British Airways flight BA227 to Atlanta makes for sorry reading. Scheduled departure time from London Heathrow was 2:05pm. My comments are enclosed in [ and ].

At 1:10pm, arrival time updated from 6:31pm to 6:29pm.
[An hour before departure the flight is on time.]

At 1:40pm, departure time updated from 2:05pm to 2:30pm (with corresponding adjustment to arrival time).
[A minor delay, perhaps due to use of a remote stand.]

At 2:35pm, departure time updated from 2:30pm to 2:45 pm.
[Another minor delay.]

At 3:05pm, departure time updated from 2:45pm to 3:00pm.
[The update has occurred a bit late but BA confident delay is not serious.]

At 10:54pm, flight status changed by London Heathrow airport to cancelled.
[Oops. 9 hours after boarding the airport records the cancellation of the flight instead of the airline.]

At 11:10pm, departure time recorded by BA as 6:52pm.
[End of flightstats record.]

The last record clearly is inconsistent with the previous one. Departure time being recorded many hours after the supposed time of departure is suspicious. It indicates the aircraft pushed back but didn’t actually depart.

A passenger account on Flyer Talk is consistent with this, and reports that they were onboard for about 9 hours before the flight was cancelled.

Under EU regulation 261/2004 passengers are entitled to care under Article 8, Article 9(1)(a), 9(1)(b), 9(1)(c) and 9(2), and Article 7. Out of hours crew is not a valid exemption to Article 7 under the extraordinary circumstances waiver, but maintenance might be. The other Articles have no such exemptions and so must apply. Article 7 provides 600 euros compensation. Article 8 provides right for passengers to choose between refund of fare or relevant portion of fare (plus flight to return to origin for those who are in the middle of their tickets), or a re-routing under comparable conditions (ie same class of travel) at earliest opportunity. Article 9 requires free meals for the waiting time, hotel accommodation, transfer to and from accommodation, and 2 phone calls/faxes/emails.

Under the new USA passenger bill of rights, passengers would almost certainly have been returned to the terminal around 4:30pm or 6 hours earlier than they actually were.

Musings of the Global Traveller
Thoughts, advice and travel news from around the world by a seasoned frequent flyer.

The results of the BA cabin crew ballot are in, and a British Airways strike for 12 days over Christmas has been announced. Sometime today BA will respond with an announcement on how it intends to deal with the strike and assist affected passengers.

The risk averse, particularly those flying BA on or before Christmas Day, should already have made or now be making alternative plans (eg see my previous post on the potential strike).

Passengers affected by the strike, some of whom do not have the option of buying an extra ticket on another airline, rerouting voluntarily or changing dates, are waiting to see what help BA will provide (as they must under EU reg 261/2004). BA should start contacting passengers flying on 22nd in the next couple of days and then continue with passengers flying on later dates.

In my case I have 3 BA flights in the strike period, none in the first couple of days of it. I am sitting tight for now – there is a chance the strike may be called off. If it is not then I have some unpalatable choices about contingencies to make later this week. I have already researched other airline options to my destinations, and backup accommodation if I get stuck en route. I won’t be waiting too long to make any changes because the alternatives will quickly sell out now the strike has been confirmed.

Musings of the Global Traveller
Thoughts, advice and travel news from around the world by a seasoned frequent flyer.

Some cities have more than one airport. These can complicate travel with some big traps for the unwary.

Some examples of cities with more than one airport include:

• Chicago – Midway, O’Hare
• London – City, Gatwick, Heathrow, Luton, Stansted
• Melbourne (Australia) – Avalon, Tullamarine
• Moscow – Domodedovo, Sheremetyevo, Vnukovo
• New York – JFK, La Guardia, Newark, White Plains
• Rio de Janiero – Galeão, Santos Dumont
• Seoul – Gimpo, Incheon
• Tokyo – Haneda, Narita

Trap 1 – Go to the Wrong Airport

The most basic mistake is to turn up, or arrange pickup, at the wrong airport. It is a very easy mistake to make, and a trap that millions of people fall into every year.

Avoid this trap by always double-checking you have the right airport. This is particularly important for low cost airlines, some of which have a habit of referring to airports by the name of the nearest major city which is not the same as the main airport of that city. For example Hahn being called Frankfurt – they are two different airports.

Trap 2 – Assume Airports are Close

If an airport is referred to as being at a particular city you may assume it is close to it. When multiple airports are referred to as being at a particular city it may seem likely they are fairly close to each other.

In some cities with multiple airports they are relatively close together – eg New York’s JFK, La Guardia and Newark airports are not too far apart. However more commonly airports may be more outlying, and a long way from the city and from each other – eg Tokyo Haneda and Narita are on different sides of the city with Narita a long train or bus ride into central Tokyo.

Some low cost airlines have a habit of using secondary airports a long distance from the city they refer to. For example Hahn is 1 hour 45 minutes away by bus from Frankfurt city, and Avalon is about an hour by bus from Melbourne city.

Avoid this trap by checking airport websites for transfer information.

Trap 3 – Connections Across Separate Airports

Some itineraries may require a transfer between airports. For example Bridgetown (Barbados) to Lagos (Nigeria) via London has the first flight arriving at Gatwick and the second departing from Heathrow.

You need to allow plenty of time to change airports. Eg British Airways requires 3 hours minimum connection time (MCT) if flying on the same ticket with a London connection across multiple airports. Journey time between Tokyo Narita and Haneda is 2 or more hours.

Avoid this trap by carefully checking draft itinerary arrival and departure airports including for transits. In some cases there may be flight options that do not require a terminal transfer. If you have no choice to change airports consider an overnight stop or all day transit to allow more time, especially if flying on separate tickets.

Trap 4 – Penny Wise, Pound Foolish

In most cases you also need to pay to transfer between airports, and this cost could be eye-wateringly high if there are no buses or trains available – for example a cab between Narita and Haneda (2+ hour travel time) is around ¥19,000 (about US$200). A saving in air fare (penny wise) can easily be more than offset by transfer costs (pound foolish).

Avoid this trap by researching transfer costs. If bus or train transfers exist these are likely to be cheapest. Also check taxi fares in case your flight is late &/or arrives outside the operating hours of the other public transport.

Trap 5 – Involuntary Transfer Between Airports

If you are travelling to a city with multiple airports and have same day onward flights you might end up with an involuntary transfer between airports if airlines change their schedules. For example someone with a New York JFK to Dubrovnik booking on British Airways (via London Gatwick) now faces a transfer between London Heathrow and Gatwick with the cancellation of JFK to Gatwick flights.

In this situation the airline may be morally obliged to assist with transfer costs and rebooking if the connection becomes impossible. However, this doesn’t always mean they are legally obliged to cover additional costs borne. I am not a lawyer, but my interpretation of EU 261/2004 (article 8 para 3) is that in the New York to Dubrovnik example above British Airways is required to pay for the cost of transfer between Heathrow and Gatwick, and potentially other costs also (eg if an overnight stay in London is now required due to the change). Travel insurance would normally cover some consequential costs (eg forced en route accommodation in countries where airlines do not have to cover those costs).

Avoid this trap by trying not to use airlines that operate from two airports in the same city if possible, and where practical routing via cities with only one major airport (eg through Frankfurt or Amsterdam instead of London or Paris).

Trap 6 – Assume Airline Partners Use the Same Airport

It is easy to assume that airline partners, especially ones in the same alliance, all use the same airport in a city with multiple airports in order to simplify connections. This is not always the case. For example in Washington, United mainly uses Dulles airport while US Airways mainly uses Reagan/National.

Avoid this trap by checking airport websites (airline websites can be misleading if they simply refer to city name). Some alliances are actively moving to reduce across city connections by co-locating, eg some Star Alliance airlines have switched from Sheremetyevo to Domodedovo.

Trap 7 – Definition of Same City Varies

Some air travel “rules” allow for special treatment in cities with multiple airports. For example:

• a fare may be common-rated (the same at both/all airports), or may not be
• a city code such as NYC for New York may be used in some circumstances to avoid a land segment between airports such as arriving at La Guardia and departing from JFK (invaluable for around the world tickets which normally include land or surface sectors in the maximum number allowed)
• checked baggage may be transferred for you between airports deemed to be co-terminals (that is in the same city), whereas otherwise you’d need to carry the bags across to the second airport yourself

Unfortunately, different definitions of what is the same city are used for different purposes. Sticking with New York as an example, for some purposes White Plains is included and for other purposes it is not.

Avoid this trap by asking your airline or travel agent about it how it works for your circumstances.

Summary

I’ve given seven traps for travel involving cities with multiple airports, and ways to deal with each of them. What problems have you experienced?

Musings of the Global Traveller
Thoughts, advice and travel news from around the world by a seasoned frequent flyer.

My 2008 travel year ended on a sour note with many flights being involuntary downgraded from business class to economy class or premium economy class.

British Airways’ subsidiary Comair downgraded my flights Johannesburg to Windhoek and return to economy class only. For the flight to Windhoek I was given a voucher for a token amount denominated in Rand. The voucher can only be used through a BA contact centre. Last time I had one, the flights cost considerably more than the same flights bookable online or via other airlines with the difference exceeding the value of this voucher. Thus the voucher is close to worthless to me. For the return flight I received no compensation at all.

Late last year LAN removed business class from all of their intra-South American flights except those operated with 767 aircraft, and replaced it with premium economy. I had lots of A320 flights booked. LAN had reseated me in economy rather than premium economy and didn’t contact me about this at all, but as I regularly check my itineraries using tools such as CheckMyTrip (see also blog entries on checking and on the various itinerary tools) I discovered this for myself. On calling LAN I was able to be put into premium economy class, but they claimed no compensation is due for the downgrades.

This rankles me. In many countries there are consumer protection laws to address the imbalance when suppliers do not provide the good or service that was paid for. For example, the EU regulation 261/2004 article 10 covering all EU-based airlines as well as all other flights from EU requires a minimum refund for downgrades, with the refund percentage based on distance. Yet some airlines think they can simply not offer the class of service that was paid for. Okay it is not as bad as an involuntary denied boarding. I still flew the flights I had booked. However, based on the logic of these airlines, this means any first or business class ticket, which may cost many thousands more than economy class, gives no assurance of any extra comfort or service beyond that offered in economy class. That doesn’t feel right.

By the way, there is another form of “downgrade” where an airline has markedly different products and switches from a better one to a worse one after you’ve bought the ticket. In this case I think the only compensation due is any fare difference (eg Singapore Airlines generally charges more to fly in first or business class on their A380). Of course, if Air NZ offers something for changing my upcoming Japan flight from 777 (business premier with private fully flat suites) to 767 (old business class narrow cradle seats), then I won’t complain. But I don’t expect anything because I am still flying in business class.

Musings of the Global Traveller
Thoughts, advice and travel news from around the world by a seasoned frequent flyer.