'Overly generous' flight disruption compensation should be reduced, says former Loganair chief

Jonathan Hinkles highlights that air passengers paid far more than delayed train and ferry travellers

The “crazy” system used for compensating passengers for flight disruption must be overhauled because it is “overly generous” and “skewed against aviation”, the former chief executive of Scottish airline Loganair has urged.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Jonathan Hinkles, who stepped down in January after running the Glasgow-based carrier for eight years, said air passengers were eligible for far higher payments than delayed train and ferry travellers.

Passengers have a right to assistance such as refreshments, accommodation and compensation on a sliding scale depending on the length of their flight and how long it is delayed, if it is the airline’s fault.

This starts after two hours for short-haul flights, with payments of £220 for delays of more than three hours, rising to £520 for long-haul flights delayed by more than four hours.

Mr Hinkles said: "We have a customer compensation regime which is uniquely skewed against aviation and regional airlines in particular.

“Thanks to EU261 [the EU regulation that still applies in the UK], anyone buying an airline ticket in the UK receives the equivalent of fully comprehensive, extended warranty insurance to go with it.

“It means that delays and cancellations – to which regional routes flying in and out of airports with few navigational aids and often with no instrument landing system are more prone – result in huge costs for airlines.

“Lately, we’ve seen a much higher frequency of extreme weather events and, of course, hotel costs and the like have skyrocketed with inflation.”

Mr Hinkles, who was addressing the Royal Aeronautical Society in Prestwick, contrasted airline compensation levels with those offered by other forms of transport.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

He said: "If you’re on a ferry, the operator has to contribute a maximum of £70 towards your overnight costs. If you’re on a train, any compensation and right-to-care is linked to the cost of your ticket.

“If you’re an airline, the compensation is fixed at a high level and the right-to-care costs have no upper limit. It’s a system that has to change.”

Jonathan Hinkles was Loganair chief executive for eight years until January. (Photo by contributed)Jonathan Hinkles was Loganair chief executive for eight years until January. (Photo by contributed)
Jonathan Hinkles was Loganair chief executive for eight years until January. (Photo by contributed) | contributed

But Mr Hinkles said the UK government had “backed off” reform following a campaign against it by consumer group Which?, which he claimed had been counter-productive.

He said: "Little do Which? know this is causing more airline delays [as] any major airline faced with a delay of more than three hours to a flight is typically delaying two flights, splitting the delay so both flights stay under the threshold at which huge compensation becomes payable.

“It’s also bad for the environment as airlines are routinely loading extra fuel to speed up flights on the cusp of the delay compensation.

“But when you have compensation of nearly £250,000 for one long-haul flight delay, the system absolutely incentivises you to do just that.

“This needs to be changed and a new government must reform this crazy legislation.”

Delayed passengers are entitled to a range of assistance on a sliding scale. (Photo by Lisa Ferguson/The Scotsman)Delayed passengers are entitled to a range of assistance on a sliding scale. (Photo by Lisa Ferguson/The Scotsman)
Delayed passengers are entitled to a range of assistance on a sliding scale. (Photo by Lisa Ferguson/The Scotsman) | LISA FERGUSON

Airlines UK, which represents carriers, agreed the system was “not fit for purpose” and backed a review.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Its spokesperson said: “Passengers are at the heart of a competitive aviation sector, and it is absolutely right that they are compensated for the inconvenience of a cancelled or significantly delayed flight when an airline is responsible.

“However, the rules that govern compensation are not fit for purpose, being applied differently to originally intended, particularly around the definition of ‘extraordinary circumstances’, causing confusion for passengers and airlines alike.”

But Which? said the new UK government should ignore such “special pleading”, which it claimed would weaken passenger rights.

Rory Boland, editor of Which? Travel, said: "It's rare to see a figure in the aviation industry advocating so openly for weaker passenger rights, but this is consistent with a long-term pattern of behaviour from some airlines that think they can get away with disregarding their legal obligations.

"EC261 is designed as a deterrent to airlines against cancelling flights at the last minute, and running services late.

“Carriers only pay compensation when the disruption is their fault, so it is likely that only airlines that have not invested in running an on-time service or consistently underperform that will pay significant sums - and it's right they do so.

"Which? has repeatedly exposed airlines for failing to pay refunds and compensation, and neglecting passenger rights to rerouting and support with food and accommodation costs when flights are delayed, leaving customers to foot the bill.

“They do this because they know they are unlikely to face any serious consequences from a toothless regulator.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“The next government must dismiss special pleading from airline bosses who want to weaken passenger rights and show it will put the travelling public first by giving the Civil Aviation Authority powers to take tough action, including fines, against airlines that break the rules."

A law firm that specialises in flight delay compensation agreed the regulations provided vital protection for passengers.

Coby Benson, a solicitor at Bott and Co, said: “Whilst I sympathise with the regional airlines, the purpose of the regulation is to provide protection to passengers when they really need it.

“These protections are crucial, particularly for passengers who can be left stranded and vulnerable when their flight is disrupted.

“The current system aims to balance the interests of both airlines and passengers.

“It should be noted that whilst the right-to-care costs have ‘no upper limit’, the law says the costs must be necessary, appropriate and reasonable. This avoids the possibility of passengers abusing the system.

“The suggestion that airlines faced with long delays are splitting the delay so that multiple flights stay under the threshold is perhaps indicative of the regulation working to minimise long delays.

“If it is solely being used as a tool to circumvent the compensation rules, then this should be condemned.”

Related topics:

Comments

 0 comments

Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.