The recent article (4/6/2010) in The Independent, highlighted a ‘league table’ of offending airlines, who it is claimed, are more prone to losing, damaging or delaying the baggage of airline passengers (note the vehement rejection by one airline of the survey’s findings).  Lost, Delayed or Damaged baggage are some of the common complaints we receive; the principle difficulty is that airline passengers do not appear to know what to do if they should suffer with any of these problems!  We attended a recent meeting at The Department for Transport, where this very issue was discussed and it was agreed amongst Consumer Groups, that the airline passenger suffers with a lack of access to timely information, in what is obviously a stressful time for them!  The Air Transport Users Council (AUC), which is part of the CAA has a useful guide to this thorny problem!  In the May 2007 edition of Get’Away, we summarised the rights of passengers under the Montreal Convention for Destroyed, Lost or Delayed Baggage due to the fault of an airline. It should be noted however, the limits for compensation have been increased since that article!  The new limits of compensation are now – Lost, Delayed or Damaged baggage 1,131 Special Drawing Rights Per Passenger – or – the limit for claims for delay is 4,694 Special Drawing Rights Per Passenger! Read More

The EU Directive 261/2004 is probably the most important set of rights yet created for air passengers.  It provides for very clear rules and obligations on the part of airlines and passengers.  This article provides basic information in relation to the new denied boarding, flight cancellation, of flight delay Regulations – The New Rules for Denied Boarding, Flight Cancellation or Flight Delay – 20.6.06.pdf Read More

Since the latter part of 2009, Consumer Organisations and The Travel Industry have been engaged in a lengthy Political Consultation process, to determine the future of Consumer or Travel Industry Rights and Obligations or Safety Issues.  HolidayTravelWatch has been fully engaged in this process and has responded to the UK Department for Transport on the future regulation of the aviation industry. Read More

The news that a British Aircaft was subject to a smoke or fume event requiring evacuation of some 300 passengers and crew, is a timely reminder of the Aerotoxic Syndrome debate.  The question of what caused this event to occur is we hope still a matter for further investigation.  However, it was clear from the report that a number of passengers were overcome by fumes, but we are not assisted as to how many received assistance following this exposure.  The issue leads to a number of questions and we hope that the Committee of Toxicity (COT), the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) have considered, irrespective of which airline is involved or whatever the cause of a smoke or fume event, to be a welcome opportunity to create an important set of guidelines on how such events should be monitored, for example, they should co-ordinate to ensure that: Read More