Originally posted by FMFThe rule is an unconscionable joke and should be changed; another meddling nanny state rule that ignores common sense at the altar of "please the mob." But it was in effect at the time and so needs to be enforced.
[b]Dutch airline KLM holds out on ash cloud compensationHundreds of British families are still waiting for compensation from Dutch airline KLM for delays caused by the volcanic ash cloud earlier this year.
According to EU rules, passengers must get hotel and meal costs reimbursed for the whole time they are stranded but KLM says it will only pa ...[text shortened]... for 24 hours.
Who does your sympathy and support go to? KLM or the passengers/E.U.?[/b]
this article includes British Airways, Virgin Atlantic, KLM and easyJet as footdraggers.
i dunno. if the EU wants a mandate, maybe they should fund it themselves. on the other hand, the airlines had their chance to refuse service to the EU before the eruptions, if they thought the burden was intolerable. they should be paying for the mandate from the insurance that they foresightedly purchased months or years before the crisis.
Originally posted by zeeblebotA government funded mandate? What is this strange creature you speak of?
this article includes British Airways, Virgin Atlantic, KLM and easyJet as footdraggers.
i dunno. if the EU wants a mandate, maybe they should fund it themselves. on the other hand, the airlines had their chance to refuse service to the EU before the eruptions, if they thought the burden was intolerable. they should be paying for the mandate from the insurance that they foresightedly purchased months or years before the crisis.
Originally posted by zeeblebotWhat?
this article includes British Airways, Virgin Atlantic, KLM and easyJet as footdraggers.
i dunno. if the EU wants a mandate, maybe they should fund it themselves. on the other hand, the airlines had their chance to refuse service to the EU before the eruptions, if they thought the burden was intolerable. they should be paying for the mandate from the insurance that they foresightedly purchased months or years before the crisis.
Originally posted by FMFUltimately either the passengers involved pay for it, or all passengers pay for it - through higher prices due to an insurance policy essentially being built into the ticket.
Neither have I. And I do wonder. Delays caused by airline operational problems etc. I can understand. But one caused by an ash cloud, and lasting almost three weeks, seems to me to be something everyone needs to take on the chin to some degree and not just businesses that were absolutely powerless in the face of something no one could control.
So its really a question of whether travel insurance should be enforced or left up to the discretion of the traveler.
It seems that currently the EU enforces travel insurance. If the airlines failed to re-insure themselves, or at least account for it in the price of the tickets, then the will have to recover it in future ticket sales. Of course they may also end up going bankrupt or getting bailed out by some government or something.
What I don't see in this thread is anyone making any actual argument for or against enforced travel insurance.
I think I am for it as insurance results in the least disruption overall.