Time to address rights of travellers affected by lengthy flight delays

Lengthy flight delays by budget airlines Scoot and Jetstar in recent weeks have put the spotlight on the plight of the 1,000-odd affected passengers and how airlines deal with customers who have suffered great inconvenience at some costs.

Passengers on Scoot flight TR899 from Taipei to Singapore arrived in the Republic on Jan 1 — two days later than scheduled — because an electrical component defect had grounded the flight.

This came days after another Scoot flight from Athens was delayed three times, finally arriving in Singapore 56 hours later than the scheduled time.

The airline apologised for the inconvenience caused to passengers in both cases, but you can imagine the ire of travellers whose plans had been disrupted, particularly those who had missed connections.

Rival Jetstar was caught in a similar situation when its flight bound for Melbourne from Singapore was delayed for almost 30 hours until Dec 22, affecting more than 320 passengers.

A common complaint of affected passengers is that they are not kept well informed of delays so that they can make alternative plans.

It raises the question of a carrier's obligations to its customers and to what degree it may be held accountable for the disruptions which would then render them liable to compensate the passengers for failing to deliver the service as contracted.

As a Scoot passenger on the delayed Greece flight said: “If you provide a service, and ask people to pay you for a service, it's expected that the service is carried out.”

Technically, this comes down to the terms and conditions of carriage stated in the fine print, which hardly anyone reads.

Not surprisingly the contract is constructed by airlines for their own protection. Since the terms and conditions may vary across the industry,  airlines may not be obliged to compensate for missed connections, particularly when the tickets are non-refundable and non-endorsable.

In most cases, the traveller's best hope lies in the carrier's goodwill as an airline risks losing customers if it is not seen to be customer-oriented.

Increasingly around the world, particularly in the West, consumer groups are actively lobbying for greater protection of passengers' rights.

The European Union has introduced regulations that govern the actions that airlines must take and the amount of compensation to be paid to their customers for disruptions to their travel plans.

For example, passengers are entitled up to €600 (S$942) if their flight lands at their destination more than three hours late. Airlines must provide refreshments and accommodation if the next available flight departs a day after the original flight. However, it is not clear if the next available flight includes a flight by another carrier.

Passengers of a cancelled flight are entitled to a re-routing to the same destination at the earliest opportunity or at the passenger's convenience, or they may demand a refund of the ticket as well as a return flight to the point of first departure.

In all cases, airlines are expected to communicate to affected passengers the status of the situation.

Canada too is proposing legislation to compensate passengers for flight disruptions. Passengers whose flights have been delayed or cancelled could receive up to C$2,400 (S$2,405), depending on the length of the delay and type of flight.

While these regulations have drilled down to the specifics in determining the claimable compensation, this is dependent on the definition of a compensable delay, which has often been disputed by an airline.

Some airlines also claim certain disruptions — for instance due to strike action by crew — is deemed an exceptional circumstance for which compensation is not due.

Fortunately, in our part of the world, flight disruptions caused by industrial action are rare if not almost non-existent. Both Scoot and Jetstar cited technical issues as the cause of their long delays.

Obviously, there can be no compromise on safety. But clearly, such technical issues should not be considered as exceptional circumstances, which generally refer to situations that are outside a carrier's control such as inclement weather, volcanic eruptions, and acts of terrorism and war.

While one cannot conveniently conclude that a technical flight delay is necessarily caused by poor maintenance, an effective maintenance programme should nonetheless ensure that lengthy flight disruptions due to technical reasons are relatively rare.

All said, the crux of the matter remains one of the carrier's failure to provide the service that it has committed to deliver, whether the carriers are budget airlines or not.

As more people take to flying and in light of the recent spate of disruptions affecting Singapore carriers, it is time that the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) take steps to address the issue as part of a commitment to protect the rights of air passengers.

Currently, much is left to the discretion of the airlines and there is little recourse for passengers to seek fair compensation.

Scoot has said its customers would receive a S$50 travel voucher to be used on its flight for delays beyond three hours. The question is whether this is reasonable.

It also stated on its website it may do more to mitigate the inconvenience in the event of a significantly long delay but the promise is vague.

Scoot recommends that passengers purchase travel insurance to cover additional costs which they may incur such as re-booking a flight for which the passenger would have to top-up the fare difference, but this should not make it any less obligatory for the airline to adequately compensate the affected passenger.

There will be cases of ambiguity, and this is where CAAS can provide guidelines on the quantum of compensation for each type of flight disruption. The guidelines should also include communication standards on timely updates to allay passengers' anxiety and enable them to make informed decisions.

Airlines that flout such guidelines should be taken to task, with penalties imposed.

Far from being punitive, CAAS' involvement will send a strong message to the airlines of their responsibilities to ensure smooth operations and to treat their customers fairly.

Some people may be concerned that airlines will raise their fares to cover the hypothetical costs of compensation in the event that they are forced to oblige under the law.

But competition in an increasingly price-sensitive market should act as the moderator and rein them in.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

David Leo is an aviation veteran and published author.