On a recent mistake fare trip to Manchester our return flight experienced a substantial mechanical delay which resulted in our eligibility for compensation under the EU261/2014 regulation. While we certainly pursued the compensation and will continue to until it is paid, our inexpensive fare made me re-evaluate whether the rule (as written) is still fair to consumers, businesses or both.
If you are considering booking travel or signing up for a new credit card please click here. Both support LiveAndLetsFly.com.
If you haven’t followed us on Facebook or Instagram, add us today.
What is EU261/2014
In a post published last week I covered most of the details found here at the Wikipedia page. For those who don’t even want to bother to click those two links but still want to know what it is, here is the quick and dirty version: All airlines flying from the EU but not necessarily to the EU must deliver compensation to their customers based on distance-based criteria in relation to how late they arrived at their destination. All EU carriers are subject to this rule, as are any carriers leaving any EU country including the UK and Switzerland. For the distance on our flight a couple of weeks ago (Manchester to Toronto) we were due €600 each, paid out in our local currency (equivalent to around $2,100 USD for the three of us combined) – we have been assured that the “check is in the mail.”
In other instances of EU261/2014, funds are disbursed on-the-spot which is naturally a preferable form of payment to the sitting and waiting option – British Airways issued a pre-loaded debit card while Aer Lingus (not to be confused with the SNL version of Aer Lingus) preferred cold hard cash.
What Is It Compensating
Missed meetings, appointments, flight connections could all have a costly knock down effect that far exceeds the cost of someone’s time. In many ways €300-600 may not be enough to replace a day of someone’s once in a lifetime trip, a day of vacation you can’t get back, tickets to events, a cruise ship departure – any number of things. Then again, when given the choice on a weeklong trip I would take the compensation every time.
Regardless, the compensation is to send a message to carriers that maintenance and preventable issues should be handled before it affects passengers and adequate measures should be put in place to avoid problems that are within the carrier’s control. It also helps business travelers and leisure travelers to avoid petty issues with the carriers and perhaps even walk away with a little bit of change in their pockets as a result.
The Rule is Objectively Harder on Discount Carriers
Fares on traditional hub-and-spoke carriers might be just as low as discounters in some cases – I have seen base fares on American of $30 on trans-Atlantic before that appeared to match a discount carrier’s price – that’s not a mistake, that’s a competitive decision. Other passengers on mainline carriers who might have missed out on that great deal could pay as much as $1800 for a coach seat and those higher fares help to offset the penalty if the airline encounters an EU261 situation.
The rule also does not grant any greater allowance for business or first class passengers though their costs were likely higher as are perhaps the stakes of a tardy arrival (they aren’t necessarily flying to visit a cousin for a weekend, they may be going to a meeting where punctuality matters). The UK Air Passenger Duty specifically charges more tax to those customers flying out of the UK in a premium cabin, in some cases hundreds of dollars more than they would a coach passenger on the same flight, however the rule does not pay out a cent more for a higher ticketed cabin. Discount carriers cannot offset the costs of EU261 with higher priced tickets sold because they don’t offer the cabin.
But discount carriers provide a public service. They make mobility possible for hundreds of millions of passengers who would never before have been able to fly. Take passengers on RyanAir flying for as little as €9.99 one way to see a friend that has moved away, when airfare was easily more than 20x that before the carrier began offering their low cost model, such a trip might not have been possible. The same is true for passengers of Spirit Airlines, Frontier or Allegiant in the States. Last week Omaha to Punta Gorda, FL (for Fort Myers) was available for $24.99 one-way, just a few years ago those flights would be priced closer to $400. As Air Asia paints on the sides of their planes, “Now Everyone Can Fly” – that is a public good in every sense of the term.
Yet these carriers are hurt the most by a statute that doesn’t take into account the cost of the ticket itself. If the carrier doesn’t even sell tickets on the route for €600 (as is the case with long haul discount carriers like WOW!) how can they be expected to pay an outsized burden for normal maintenance issues that happen with any carrier?
It Doesn’t Allow For Mistake Fares
We recently flew Air Transat (not a discount carrier but not a mainline either) and the average price for the three of us was $183 on a mistake fare, though this was only about half of what they typically charge. Due to issues on the ground we incurred a lengthy delay that just barely crossed over four hours. In terms of US dollars, the airline was now on the hook for somewhere in the neighborhood of $720 USD per passenger on the flight. If you strip away our fares as limited in scope and remove the taxes from the other passengers, I have a hard time believing that many on the aircraft paid $720 in base fare without a mistake factoring in.
We booked the ticket because we have wanted to get back to Manchester, but specifically because it was a mistake. We would have likely flown some other airline and route if the prices were equal. We seized the opportunity because it was an outsized value. To think that by taking the trip, not only was it free in the end, but they actually paid us to fly it feels a lot like theft.
That doesn’t mean that I didn’t take the compensation, I lobbied for it and told other passengers about their rights while on the plane. However, in retrospect it doesn’t seem fair that the airline couldn’t at least have just washed their hands of our route. Consider this, of $183 average price we paid for our roundtrip tickets, only $64 of that price was the fare that went to the airline, the rest was UK APD. On our outbound, the airline made $32 in revenue and spent at least that in fuel which doesn’t include the meals, rights to the IFE entertainment, the printing of our luggage tags and boarding cards, and so on. Only our return flight was affected so at most, in my opinion, we should have gotten a refund of $32 for the one way return that the airline really had control over.
For Premium Customers It’s Not Even Close to Fair
It seems a few times every year sales crop up where fares across the Atlantic can be had in a premium cabin for $1000-1500 without it being a mistake. These are great for passengers that normally would fly in coach or premium economy classes expecting to pay about the same. However, most often these cabins are filled with business travelers (hence Business Class) buying last minute tickets on the company dime.
For this group of travelers that fill the front end of the aircraft and make the whole flight profitable regardless of how many passengers are seated behind the curtain, it is imperative to the purpose of their trip that they arrive as expected. Going to a last minute meeting across the Atlantic is rarely a picnic and at least one direction will be a redeye flight. Consequences for a tardy arrival (especially if it causes the passenger to miss a connection) could be millions of dollars, euros or pounds. Even if the business is not lost, their employee is tired having waited through the delay at the airport, is not at their level best and is less happy with the need for the trip in the first place.
The business is not compensated for their portion of the ordeal as the financier of the trip, it goes to the traveler as he or she is the affected party and actually endured the wait. Is the business not due something for their own risk or financial loss as a result of the delay? Should both parties split whatever amount is due?
My Proposed Changes
To update the regulation – which remains necessary not only in the EU but I also believe it’s needed in the US – I propose the following changes to the regulation to make it relevant and fair to consumers and businesses alike. These apply solely to coach and premium economy classes and flights in excess of 3500kms or all trans-Atlantic flights to or from North America among other destinations:
- Coach and premium economy compensation for delays in arrival of 120-179 minutes is due in the amount of €50 or a refund of the fare paid excluding taxes (not pretend fuel surcharges, I am looking at you British Airways), whichever is less. This will help carriers like WOW! that are making trans-Atlantic flights possible for nearly any budget without taxing them for mechanical issues that all carriers have from time-to-time.
- Coach and premium economy compensation for delays in arrival of 180-239 minutes is due in the amount of €300 or 50% of your fare excluding taxes whichever is less. This amps it up to the current level except in cases just like mine where the airline was paying me to fly them – that was ludicrous when it happened and (while I will fully pursue the compensation and spend it on something wonderful) it really wasn’t fair to the carrier.
- Coach and premium economy compensation for delays in arrival of 240 minutes is due in the amount of €600 or 100% of your fare excluding taxes whichever is less. If you paid less than €600 for your return to Europe (which is more expensive than the going rate most days now anyway even on full service carriers). Adjusting to 100% makes it clear that the airlines aren’t going to make any money on those passengers for this flight anyway, but if they didn’t pay €600 for the ticket, they shouldn’t have to pay passengers to fly them, especially leisure passengers who might have significant flexibility in their schedule or long layovers upon their arrival.
For Business, First and “Super First” (Suites Class, Residence) of the same distance criteria the following apply:
- Delays of 120-179 minutes incur a €200 on-the-spot (or when they land) disbursement. The same amount also returns to the billed party.
- Delays of 180-239 minutes incur a €300 on-the-spot (or when they land) disbursement. The same amount returns to the billed party.
- Delays of 240 minutes or more incur a €600 on-the-spot (or when they land) disbursement to the traveler and 50% of the roundtrip excluding taxes returning to the billed party.
Does This Even The Playing Field?
Perhaps, perhaps not, it’s all speculation of course. But what remains undisputable is that the market has changed from when the original law was written. Discount carriers are offering an opportunity for those who have never had a chance to travel abroad before, the entry-level price point they needed. That’s in the best interest of everyone, not just the travelers but the airlines that need to fill seats, airports that need landing fees to modernize, adjust and grow – the corner coffee shop in Paris that is struggling with lower tourism spend. Penalizing those carriers in an outsized fashion while they expand the growth of tourism across the continent is a bad idea. However, all carriers (European, North American, the world over) should be accountable for delays that have real impacts on their customers.
If a passenger is delayed (by a flat tire, or stuck in traffic) then shows up for their flight that departed on time, they are up to the mercy of the airline and may have to pay change fees, differences in fare, or other penalties if the carrier decides to impose them. The carrier will say, “We had a contract and you’re in breach” and with EU261 consumers get to say the same back to the carriers. But failing to perform on a contract, shouldn’t necessarily mean the carrier is paying passengers to fly them simply because the EU hasn’t revisited whether the compensation amount still serves the same penalty to the carrier.
What do you think? Should EU261/2014 make adjustments to the compensation levels based on cabin and fare paid?
This is a really stupid article and should be taken down from the site. EU261 is one of the very few solid rights that travellers in the EU have and should remain as is without you getting on your high horse about how carriers are penalized in an outsized fashion. These airlines are large companies with millions or billions in revenue, and they are all (yes, including discount carriers and those who are not quite full-service carriers) well aware of the EU261 rights that travellers have. If they aren’t, then the solution isn’t really to take away compensation from the traveller or to exclude taxes from it. Mistake fares notwithstanding, airlines price their tickets in a manner that is profitable to them even taking into account EU 261 and taxes, and your case of being paid to fly, is the exception rather than the rule.
You don’t take into account the fact that other (discount, long-haul) airlines I’ve had personal experience with rarely pay up compensation owed, coming up with various (stretched) reasons behind the delay or cancellation. They easily escape from paying compensation by saying matters were beyond their control, putting many travellers at risk of great monetary loss. Air Transat may not have done this, but regardless, the EU261 compensation is there for a reason: because travellers are at the mercy of airlines and airlines sometimes tend not to pay up without a good fight. The amount of compensation decided is a fair one and in part discourages cancellation and delays. To make travellers responsible for APD as you suggest is ludicrous — it makes the airline’s delay or problems the traveller’s problem. As is your argument about company and business travel: yes, many companies pay out for business tickets but equally many companies also make their workers fly premium economy over business these days, and some make workers take economy. What of their tardy arrival and the potential money lost by the employee, in economy or PE, owing to the delay? What of leisure travellers who will need the EU261 compensation to pay for non-refundable hotel cancellations, an overnight stay in an airport (premium fliers usually get better treatment eg hotel for overnight delays vs economy passengers who are left to their own devices) or missed connections on a separate flight? You write from the position of someone who typically flies premium cabins for work, yet the majority of people fly economy, many workers fly economy/PE, and the majority of these leisure economy fliers are often the ones who can’t quite afford the costs (as opposed to those flying in business) that come with flight delays and cancellation which is all the more reason to level compensation across the board.
I love this blog, but this article has made me not want to read it anymore. You should really think carefully before you go around suggesting that compensation such as this should be reduced.
If you are so concerned about Air Transat paying you to fly them, if you think it’s unfair, then you really shouldn’t write a public article that might provide the EU impetus or evidence that they should change the amounts compensation due to travellers but instead.. you should NOT “FULLY” pursue the compensation owed to you. If you want to suggest a lower payout based on fare paid, then practice what you preach!
^ that
And the fact that author is writing about non-existent EU261/2014 since it’s EU261/2004.
Kenneth – I certainly appreciate and invite your comments but there is one area where you’ve made an incorrect assumption. I am certainly advocating in a certain portion of the post for businesses and those traveling in premium cabins to receive different compensation than those that may have paid less. But you state, “You write from the position of someone who typically flies premium cabins for work, yet the majority of people fly economy, many workers fly economy/PE, and the majority of these leisure economy fliers are often the ones who can’t quite afford the costs (as opposed to those flying in business) that come with flight delays and cancellation which is all the more reason to level compensation across the board” and yes I write from this view point but personally, I have travelled more than 250,000 flown miles this year and paid for business class out of pocket once, and flown coach or paid for coach every other flight. Writing from a perspective is one thing, but the plight of the economy class is my plight too, that doesn’t mean that just because I don’t get to fly paid international business class tickets that I think they should have the same compensation as someone in the back on a much less expensive ticket with potentially much more flexible travel plans.
I think you’re right that a blanket amount for all classes of service and all carriers does not make a whole lot of sense. It reminds me of when passengers deliberately tried to book on oversold flights as a money-making endeavor.
However, I see EU261 as more of an insurance product than a fine. Presumably, carriers don’t know these issues are going to come up, so the cost of each carriers’ penalties should be spread evenly over all their routes. Carriers with spotty maintenance programs should consequently charge more to account for greater penalties. From that standpoint, the only issue I see with the current regulation is if it keeps low cost carriers from opening certain routes, or keeps new entrants out, due to the cost or threshold needed to start a strong maintenance program in a new city-pair.
I think it’s effective as a punishment for airlines and insurance for passengers, but I think that it’s perhaps too steep for some of the carriers. It feels like the penalty for jaywalking is a year in jail and $10,000 instead of a slap on the wrist. If you really want to stop jaywalking then fine, increase the penalty, that’s fair, but it seems a little out of balance for the new discount carriers with bargain basement prices (and the flag carriers that chase them).
I think EU261 has helped to level a field that has for a long time been woefully uneven. Passengers get highly penalized left and right for incidents that are also just a part of life, sometimes small and sometimes bigger, but IMO easily fixed by the airline with little effort and no cost. If you misspell a name during booking you can pay $200 to change it. If you have an emergency and must change a flight or $200 change fee plus difference in last minute fare even if the seat might go out empty. Arrive a minute after check in time (as set by the airline not security agencies) and you cannot check in. Passengers get penalized left and right and airlines rarely do and it is just excused by “act of god” or “beyond their control”. I feel that I am more understanding that most when it comes to delays and cancellations; I have never batted an eyelid and simply got on with it whenever I miss a connection due to delay or a flight is cancelled etc. That may be because I worked in aviation as an Avgeek, understand that thing happen better than the average flyer. But in any case, EU261 provides a helpful shield for those who have invariably relied on things going right. My friends recently were flying to NBO from JFK for their wedding and were delayed about 12 hours total on arrival. They had separate tickets on a local airline that cannot be booked as a through ticket and almost would have had to forgo their original flights but luckily did not. This is a great example of where EU261 would have helped.
On a separate note, it is interesting to me that in the US, airlines are fined by the DOT for tarmac delays but that the fine goes to DOT and the affected persons see none of it.
KQ747 – I did write a piece about how the US should adopt similar protections – it would single handedly put Allegiant out of business and keep everyone honest. I think it’s amazing that if I as a consumer want to break my contract with the airline and show up four hours late I forfeit the ticket, but if they fail to properly prepare for our flight and leave four hours late in the US it’s perfectly acceptable and I have no recourse. I am not saying the rule should go away, I am just not in agreement that blanket amounts based on pricing and flight models from more than a decade ago are still relevant in a drastically differently trans-Atlantic market we know today.
Hi,
I’m not sure I agree with you, but some fair points.
I’ve flown the Toronto Manchester route several times now and on two occasions was delayed for 24 hours. On the one occasion we were flying from Toronto and received a grudging ex gratia compensation of $500. On the other I was flying room Manchester and received the maximum amount. On both occasions we ended up in good accommodation and my one complaint would be that we spent too long in the airport after the airline had probably decided it could not fly us (presumably while the airline sorted accommodation).
I personally think it’s a good law, but the amount might be capped at the ticket price. Really Canada should consider a similar law- the compensation on the ex Toronto flight was grudging and the initial offer was for half the value in Transat vouchers – we missed a family reunion and a day off our holiday and were travelling with very young children.
I think your point and that of others (missing family reunions, meetings, irreplaceable days off from work) that the price of the ticket is not necessarily representative of the value of the trip – that’s fair. However, in some cases I think it might be too punitive for a four hour delay. At least there is a healthy discussion regarding what it could be.
@Matthew — This analysis is a geat example of why this rule is more likely to revoked than strengthened — greed.
Gene: Is it greedy to say that carriers are the ones getting hosed when they offer really cheap tickets? Can you elaborate on that? Also, this was not written by Matthew.
I think the one thing that would make this rule work better is if the penalties are doubled or tripled if they are not paid on the spot or within a very short period of time. Those carriers that make you go through a dispute process should have to pay for it dearly if you prevail in the end. If that one change were made, some reductions in immediate compensation might be in order.
As for your suggestion – it is illogical in one part. You suggest a full fare refund for 120-179 minutes, but only 50% for 180-239 minutes. What’s up with that?
It should have been the other way around, I will correct.
Err no. Your suggestions don’t level the playing field. Airlines are recording record profits in spite of the EU 261.
EU 261 is a safety net for travelers, it’s the reason why I travel worry-free in Europe: airlines can’t just say “though luck mate next flight out is in 2 days, enjoy the terminal chairs as a makeshift bed”.
And no, I don’t think premium cabin should get a higher compensation. It’s not up to the regulators to say that their time is more important that the time of economy pax. All of them paid their tickets to arrive at the same time, premium cabin isn’t paying more to land 2h sooner, they’re paying more because they want their journeys more comfortable.
Luckily an idea of a compensation table based on booked cabin won’t fly in Europe. They care about equality too much over there for that.
Yes, EU 261 stings the airlines – but because of that EU airlines are more careful than their US counterparts, especially in the LCC world. Why do you think Ryanair didnt/doesn’t have the horrible ops Spirit used to run, or Allegiant? That’s right, EU 261. It’s cheaper to have things running right than pay the compensation.
EU does consumer protection way better, and I don’t see it going away, or being decimated like you suggest. No GOP there, and no single president to do everything to make the rich even richer.
Finally, you say you think it’s unfair you need to get paid you much yet you still expect that payment? You could also make it fair by, you know, asking for $2k for just minutes over 4h on mistake fares if you want to be nice to the airline.
Klanfa: Are you sure that EU airlines are recording record profits, or just US carriers which only face the issue in one direction on trans-Atlantic flights only? We obviously fundamentally disagree on what constitutes fair as well, I don’t believe that if a customer pays $200 for a ticket to Europe on British Airways that they deserve to make money (300%+ of what they paid) while the business class customer that paid $3000 one-way deserves just a fraction of what they paid for arriving just as late.
As someone who lived in Europe for three years and flew a lot of RyanAir and EasyJet, I can assure you that you are mistaken on their operation. They chose to buy newer aircraft (this is well documented) because they are cheaper to maintain, not to avoid EU261 – you’ve fabricated that portion. Allegiant we both agree runs an inconsistent and unreliable operation and I do not fly them nor do I advise anyone to do so who values their own time.
EU does protect the consumer better but in this case it has not adapted so it is the consumer who is getting a far better deal than the business in an agreeable transaction. In some cases I am suggesting that the consumer is due less (they paid less for their ticket, they should not get paid to travel by the carrier) and in some cases that the businesses are getting off easy (they should pay more to business class customers who are relying on their timely service as contracted). How does that take a single side? Isn’t that advocating for both while showing that in both cases the rule itself is no longer fair?
As long as the rule is in place I am fully accepting the compensation, and while I see your point, like the irony in Warren Buffett calling for higher taxes for the ultra-rich but then not sending a check in to the government himself; I guess I figured starting the conversation was at least helping the issue. Perhaps not.
I’ve also wondered if premium passengers should be paid more under EU261. The law definitely doesn’t take budget carriers into account. I think the purpose of the law is to provide compensation for damages resulting from the delay, which aren’t related to the price paid for the flight.
Exactly, it’s not really fair to either party in a relevant way any more.
Seems to me that airlines which deliberately choose to serve Europe despite the regulatory environment are making a business decision. It’s working pretty well for most of them – irrops are rare and so state mandated irrops insurance is just a cost, like crew pensions, that they accept by entering the market. Kind of like hiring employees in France – they know what they’re getting into.
But, tell you what. Convince the US DOT to make tarmac delay fines payable to pax directly and then let’s circle back on EU consumer rules.
I have advocated for a similar regulation for the US and agree businesses are voluntarily accepting its terms. I just think they should be updated.
Interesting “Devil’s Advocate” position, but I disagree with the premise. You point out that premium class passengers have more at stake economically than someone flying for $200 in coach. That may be true in absolute terms, but I’d argue that a serious delay has more serious real-world consequences for the lower fare traveler. If someone making $50k a year buys one of these WOW Air fares because that’s what they can afford, and their return flight gets delayed to the extent that they miss a day’s work, I’d argue that a day’s lost wages or a black mark for an unauthorized absence, plus the extra costs incurred that weren’t budgeted for, are far more damaging to that person than the businessman that might miss out on a deal, even if that deal is worth more in absolute dollars. If “fairness” is the argument, then it’s arguably more “fair” to compensate these passengers more given the outsize economic impact. Your argument also ignores the fact (brought up by another commenter) that airlines continue to play games to weasel their way out of compensation by claiming “extraordinary circumstances”. The airlines have never been one to play fair with consumers, especially ULCCs, so frankly I have little sympathy if they get hit in a situation like yours.
If the concern is with hackers taking advantage of mistake fares to make a windfall, there’s an easier solution. Either change the rule to exclude document mistake fares from EU261 (not my preferred route, since airlines would no doubt play games by trying to document every sale as a “mistake”), or reduce the compensation due by insurance proceeds received, maybe with some kind of nominal “floor” like 100-150 euros. That would still provide meaningful protections for those who need it, while preventing people like me from getting a windfall that don’t really need it.
I think more than anything, there is no absolutely fair way to impose the rule, but my point of the post is bringing up that there are some very valid reasons why it isn’t great as it sits now. I think you make a fair point that a missed work day could cost a passenger far more than €600 even if that’s not what they make on a given day when factoring in time, holiday use, lost wages, whatever else it might be. But how could it possibly be fair to say that a person’s inconvenience in the back of the plane is worth 300% of what they paid but the person in the front of the plane’s time is only worth 20% assuming a flat rate of payment?
Based on the debate in the comments I would have to assume that my original assessment is that the rule is not necessarily fair. That was more the point I wanted to deliver than anything else.
Does this apply for award /mileage flights?
It does indeed!
Rather strange logic. My two paisa below
1. LCCs as a public service : Yeah right. LCCs arent performing any public service. They have lowered their costs, while also providing tons of hidden charges which a newbie traveller may not be aware of. While they may have made flying cheaper, I fail to understand your thinking that this rule is unfair to them. They are consistently profitable airlines, and if they screw up they should pay for it.
2. Equal comp for front of the plane & cattle class irks you : I can understand that you might feel that because you paid more for your ticket your travel plans are inflexible, while the poor slob in coach who might be rushing back to meet a dying relative has flexible travel plans.
Shockingly elitist!
@747Always – I think what I executed is that the rule is not fair for anyone any more, not the carriers, not all passengers equally, etc. I find it interesting that some readers have suggested in regards to discount carriers that they should not get an exemption from the full penalty because they know what the environment is in which they work and they have priced their fares despite this. That’s true and expansion has only increased. But I do feel like the discount fares that are offered are of public benefit and open the world to consumers that could have never otherwise considered a trans-Atlantic trip. And yes they are fraught with fees like checked baggage, but without them there, what would it be like? If you consider where airfares were in coach a decade ago, $1000 (even before ten years of inflation) would have been an expected rate. In fact at least on one occasion 9 years ago I advised my sister-in-law to buy an $800 ticket to Europe from the Midwest because it was not likely to stay so low. Now, that trip could be had for a quarter of that price excluding the inflation adjustments and while yes, that included a checked bag, if you add $70 each way, we still aren’t close to those full-service prices. So I firmly stand behind that, even when you consider that consumers may end up spending double what they anticipated – it’s still far cheaper than ever before in most cases.
But I then don’t know if I can be called elitist for defending that customers (passengers or businesses) who paid far more for the airfare should be due a proportional refund. I find it to be downright egalitarian. That “poor slob” in economy may have even paid more than the business class fare so maybe it shouldn’t be tied to cabin class but rather fare paid. I restricted it to cabin to avoid British Airways and their outright lies in regards to fuel surcharges.
So on one hand, I am suggesting that it’s not fair to businesses (which makes me some sort of conservative I am sure) and on the other hand I think it should be tied at least loosely to the price paid for the seat (which I am sure makes me a liberal to others). In reality, I just think the rule is unfair as written and needs to be updated.
The rule is fine. Premium pax are not worth more compensation, that’s also fine. This whole article is BS.
Thank you for reading the post.
UA3411 ORD-SDF 2017-04-09 shows why compensation level should not be capped at 4 times one way fare (which was probably well less than $200) nor should EU compensation be capped after 4 hours. Remember Dr. Dao and the other 3 were offered next day’s third flight 23 hours later. If I were the DOT or a congressman, I’d legislate a minimum $10/h compensation after 4 hours (starting at $50 at 241 minutes) capping at 168 hours and $1680.