Temp changes to Flight Refunds Policy

**lam** · 1 May 20, 09:22 PM

Just read that a number of countries(including Ireland) are lobbying/supporting a temporary change to EU rules that permits refunds are given to customers for cancelled flights.

They state the current situation was not foreseen at the time of agreement and are looking for vouchers to be ratified instead.

Not sure what the outcome was/will be BUT

changes MAY be on the way!

Guest · 1 May 20, 09:48 PM

I can't see the point in this, why have a regulation that safeguards consumers from suppliers not providing a service they have paid for and then decide to pull it at the time it's actually most needed !

I can understand watering-down compensation rules maybe but not the foundation of refund if the airline cancels rule

**cornishfrogboy** · 1 May 20, 10:46 PM

It would be difficult to agree that a new law could be retrospectively implemented.

People bought various tickets whilst fully aware of the law relating to them. Had the law been different, then they may have not risked their money.

Guest · 2 May 20, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by cornishfrogboy

It would be difficult to agree that a new law could be retrospectively implemented.

People bought various tickets whilst fully aware of the law relating to them. Had the law been different, then they may have not risked their money.

Agreed...

I wouldn't be against them temporarily suspending the "compensation" parts of the legislation. Seems as unfair that consumers can profit as it does that airlines can "forget/delay" to make repayments for cancellations

Tinkerbell · 2 May 20, 10:43 AM

We have after six weeks now had the opportunity to take a refund from Easyjet. I held off the voucher scenario.

Peko · 2 May 20, 01:30 PM

Suspending the compensation element of EC261 would almost certainly be irrelevant. Compensation does not apply where �extraordinary circumstances� are the reason for cancellation, and it�s hard to imagine circumstances more extraordinary than these in peacetime. Somebody might try to test that in court, I wouldn�t fancy their chances.

As to the refund element, it depends on your point of view. Neither regulation EC261 nor the Package Travel Regulations were framed with the remotest thought that a situation of this magnitude could occur. We aren�t talking about individual flights, individual companies failing/behaving badly, certain origins/destinations or natural/economic/terrorist events, all of which have been limited in some way, even if they seemed huge at the time. The entire global travel industry has pretty much ground to a halt in the space of a couple of weeks. Not the only industry affected of course, but it was among the first to suffer and will take longer to recover.

The simple reality is that if everyone gets an immediate refund, most travel companies will go under (from airlines to hotels, tour operators and travel agents). Even many of those with previously reasonable liquidity cannot withstand a shock of this nature for a prolonged period. There will be literally hundreds of thousands of job losses in the UK alone (again, in other industries too, but we are talking travel here), and large parts of the travel industry will cease to exist. Some won�t survive anyway, but this would be on a different scale. The vast majority of companies involved are not trying to delay/avoid refunds to profiteer right now, it�s literally a matter of corporate life or death.

The other side of that argument is why should the consumers have to fund the saving of these businesses, through vouchers etc. A fair point, and there is just no easy answer. Simply pointing at a law that was never intended to, and cannot, cover this situation isn�t realistic to me. Somebody has to come up with the money to get through this, and of course nobody wants it to be them. Companies could in theory borrow the money to cover this, but that�s not as easy as it sounds in many cases.

Only government can print money, and if they don�t directly fund the refunds, another solution will be necessary. The voucher scheme is far from ideal, but if we want the travel industry to survive it might be a pathway, with the appropriate safeguards (at the minimum, a guarantee that unused vouchers are converted to refunds at a later date, underwritten by governments if companies fail financially in the meantime). And while companies can�t (or shouldn�t) change T&Cs after the event, in times of crisis governments can (and sometimes should).

Bit of a long post, and I genuinely do see both sides, but I guess I lean to the bigger picture view whereby companies, the travel industry and its jobs will be saved as far as possible, as long as consumer monies are protected, albeit delayed. Neither the UK government nor the EU are yet providing clarity on this, and it needs some.

**lam** · 2 May 20, 03:39 PM

Thank you Peko for taking the time to give such a considered response.

I also have a tendency to look at the overall picture because of the magnitude and serious consequences of the situation.

IF they were to agree a voucher system, further consumer safeguards will be necessary ie. 5 year limit and a guarantee they WILL/MUST be honoured if the issuer goes bankrupt.

Guest · 2 May 20, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by lam

Thank you Peko for taking the time to give such a considered response.

I also have a tendency to look at the overall picture because of the magnitude and serious consequences of the situation.

IF they were to agree a voucher system, further consumer safeguards will be necessary ie. 5 year limit and a guarantee they WILL/MUST be honoured if the issuer goes bankrupt.

And that any holiday booked using them will be covered to the full financial value by insurance.

Guest · 2 May 20, 11:01 PM

Originally Posted by FamilyGWales

And that any holiday booked using them will be covered to the full financial value by insurance.

It would also only be viable if it guaranteed a like for like holiday at no extra cost, otherwise every travel provider will just put up their prices so that the voucher can't be used without adding extra money

**lam** · 7 May 20, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by familygwales

and that any holiday booked using them will be covered to the full financial value by insurance.

totally!

1 May 20, 09:48 PM	#2
	1 May 20, 09:48 PM Guest Guest
Guest Guest	I can't see the point in this, why have a regulation that safeguards consumers from suppliers not providing a service they have paid for and then decide to pull it at the time it's actually most needed ! I can understand watering-down compensation rules maybe but not the foundation of refund if the airline cancels rule

2 May 20, 01:30 PM	#6
	2 May 20, 01:30 PM Peko Imagineer
Peko Imagineer Join Date: Sep 16	Suspending the compensation element of EC261 would almost certainly be irrelevant. Compensation does not apply where �extraordinary circumstances� are the reason for cancellation, and it�s hard to imagine circumstances more extraordinary than these in peacetime. Somebody might try to test that in court, I wouldn�t fancy their chances. As to the refund element, it depends on your point of view. Neither regulation EC261 nor the Package Travel Regulations were framed with the remotest thought that a situation of this magnitude could occur. We aren�t talking about individual flights, individual companies failing/behaving badly, certain origins/destinations or natural/economic/terrorist events, all of which have been limited in some way, even if they seemed huge at the time. The entire global travel industry has pretty much ground to a halt in the space of a couple of weeks. Not the only industry affected of course, but it was among the first to suffer and will take longer to recover. The simple reality is that if everyone gets an immediate refund, most travel companies will go under (from airlines to hotels, tour operators and travel agents). Even many of those with previously reasonable liquidity cannot withstand a shock of this nature for a prolonged period. There will be literally hundreds of thousands of job losses in the UK alone (again, in other industries too, but we are talking travel here), and large parts of the travel industry will cease to exist. Some won�t survive anyway, but this would be on a different scale. The vast majority of companies involved are not trying to delay/avoid refunds to profiteer right now, it�s literally a matter of corporate life or death. The other side of that argument is why should the consumers have to fund the saving of these businesses, through vouchers etc. A fair point, and there is just no easy answer. Simply pointing at a law that was never intended to, and cannot, cover this situation isn�t realistic to me. Somebody has to come up with the money to get through this, and of course nobody wants it to be them. Companies could in theory borrow the money to cover this, but that�s not as easy as it sounds in many cases. Only government can print money, and if they don�t directly fund the refunds, another solution will be necessary. The voucher scheme is far from ideal, but if we want the travel industry to survive it might be a pathway, with the appropriate safeguards (at the minimum, a guarantee that unused vouchers are converted to refunds at a later date, underwritten by governments if companies fail financially in the meantime). And while companies can�t (or shouldn�t) change T&Cs after the event, in times of crisis governments can (and sometimes should). Bit of a long post, and I genuinely do see both sides, but I guess I lean to the bigger picture view whereby companies, the travel industry and its jobs will be saved as far as possible, as long as consumer monies are protected, albeit delayed. Neither the UK government nor the EU are yet providing clarity on this, and it needs some. Edited at 09:02 PM. Reason: Correct typos