New refund rules for airlines

[braumeister]

Effective now, there are three new rules about compensation for delayed, changes, or canceled flights flying into, out of, and within the US. We're getting closer to the good practice in Europe.

Passengers will be entitled to a refund if their flight is either significantly changed or canceled. “Significantly changed” flights cover the following scenarios:

• Where the departure or arrival time differs by more than 3 hours domestically and 6 hours internationally
• Where the departure or arrival airports differ from the original itinerary
• Where there is an increase in the number of connections
• Where passengers are downgraded to a lower service class
• Where passengers with disabilities are forced to connect through a different airport or fly a different aircraft not listed on their original itinerary that are less accessible or accommodating

Refunds are calculated based on the affected portions of the ticket. For instance, if the return leg of a passenger’s trip was affected by a delay or cancellation, they would only be entitled for a refund for that portion of the ticket.

The other two rules deal with significantly delayed baggage return (12 hours on domestic flights, 15-30 hours on international) and extra services not provided (wifi, seat selection, upgrades, inflight entertainment).
U.S. Air Travel Refund Rules In Effect

 

[Koolau]

Effective now, there are three new rules about compensation for delayed, changes, or canceled flights flying into, out of, and within the US. We're getting closer to the good practice in Europe.

The other two rules deal with significantly delayed baggage return (12 hours on domestic flights, 15-30 hours on international) and extra services not provided (wifi, seat selection, upgrades, inflight entertainment).
U.S. Air Travel Refund Rules In Effect

I noticed the site said that there won't be "excuses" (my word) for things like weather and broken aircraft.

Nothing like these changes occur in a vacuum. Likely, other changes within the airlines will include higher air fares, more restrictions and maybe reduced routes. I guess we'll see since YMMV.

 

[Aerides]

I think it's a good idea vs. forcing folks to jump through hoops, or get nothing. One thing I have to look into though:

A couple of years back my flight got cancelled the day before I travelled. I was fortunate to get an alternate flight (albeit one I would never have booked, but it got me from A to almost B on the day I wanted to get there)...I'm sure it would have cost more to book straight up given it was 24 hours notice. It might have been more profitable for the airline to refund me the $400 or so I'd paid to book a month early, and force me to buy a new ticket, and what would have been twice the price.

As long as the control - refund or rebook without a hike - is still in the customer's hands, I'm all for this. Getting shafted when you're about to travel is no fun.

 

[brett]

Our experience is that the penalties do work.

Last year we each collected 600 Euro each for a delayed flight from Portugal to Canada.

Several months ago my spouse collected $1000 CAD for a cancelled late night flight from Toronto. Next flight was in the AM.

In both instances it took us 5 minutes or so to fill out the claim. Both claims satisfied within 3 weeks.

It is worthwhile to note that the EU rules also apply to flights from NA going into an EU airport on an EU based airline.

 

[SecondAttempt]

I think there needs to be a pragmatic but aggressive approach. Airlines generally get off the hook for weather and safety issues. The should be required to maintain safety no matter what and fined if their choices cancel flights for safety reasons.

Weather is touchier. I recently booked my tickets to Europe in December, United clearly encouraged me to book through Denver and Chicago. I did enough winter work travel in the day to know they are just trying to fill flights that no one wants. So should they be fined for taking the risk of providing services in the winter. I don't think so. But should they compensate passengers harmed by their choice of business risk? Maybe.

 

[CaptTom]

I'm skeptical of "weather" cancellations.

I had a flight delayed, which the airline was reporting as "mechanical" issues with the airplane. This went on for many hours, until a small storm moved through. They immediately cancelled the flight for "weather" reasons, and gave the passengers nothing. The storm passed quickly and few, if any, other flights were affected. Dishonest? You decide...

 

[braumeister]

Weather issues are often at whatever airport your plane is coming from, not your location. If they can't get it off the ground there, it can't arrive in time for your flight here.

 

[athena53]

Nothing like these changes occur in a vacuum. Likely, other changes within the airlines will include higher air fares, more restrictions and maybe reduced routes. I guess we'll see since YMMV.

I agree that fares are likely to rise- especially for the budget airlines where their limited aircraft supply means that some flights are only on certain days of the week and if the flight is cancelled you may be there for several overnights. I support it, though- it's a form of insurance built into the ticket cost. I just hope it doesn't jeopardize safety. The reason for the current exclusions of weather and mechanical issues was to make sure that airlines didn't fly under possibly dangerous conditions just to avoid potential costs of refunds.

 

[Phroig]

Does “refund” mean you give up your ticket? That’s no good for people who need to fly anyway.

The few times this happened to us in Europe, we were rebooked and got nice checks.

 

[brett]

Does “refund” mean you give up your ticket? That’s no good for people who need to fly anyway.

The few times this happened to us in Europe, we were rebooked and got nice checks.

We received cash refunds for our two claims. In one instance cheque, in another internet transfer.

Vouchers were specifically banned....only cash refunds were permitted under the rules.