There's a better graphics for this. I wonder why they aren't using.. http://philippine-aviation-forum.29460.n7.nabble.com/file/n2/APBR-13Dec-141pm-FOR-OG.png
Hello. For the sake of argument. and enlightenment. In your own understanding, How would you classify the recent incident in NAIA? Will it be considered as "force majeure" or the chaos was cause by airlines themselves? Because, how will the airline do the process of compensation if first and foremost it is not their fault?
Force Majuere is an ACT OF GOD. Acts oF God are earthquake, Typhoon, flood, Tsunami and the like. Anything that has an intervention of man is an act of man alone.
I am aware and thanks. Now, as we all know, it is an accident committed by another airline. So here is my question, does the other affected airline has the responsibility to do the process of compensation? Since it is not their fault. Their operation must have went smoothly if the incident did not happened. Based on your post, the airline will only compensate if (A) Cancellation due to force majure (B) Cancellation due to airlines fault (C) Delayed in tarmac for 2 hours or more (D) Birth or death. So which category the other affected airline fall?
B and C. Note that compensation takes effect only when you are already checked in. If you are scheduled for departure you may be re-book for a later flight. That's what airlines actually did.
Now its a little bit clearer. Its the same here in canada. Airlines are required to compensate of any event/incident related that cause delays/cancellation to ONLY Checked In passengers. For those not, they can either cancel/re-book thier tickets or wait for the replacement flight. I have to have this comversation, because passengers who just arrived in airport, in the airport not checked in and going towards airport and are not checked in, not in plane nor arriving towards manila are those who are more actively asking for compensation and its all their side of story that I hear in all media outlets. So, it all showed that PAL and CebPac or any other airlines blamed for inconveniences and somehow look they did not do anything in which it is not basically thier fault
From my opinion: The latest incident in NAIA is not considered force majeur but airlines has no reason to compensate the pax. However, airlines must provide the necessary assistance to pax like rebooking free of charge, up to date info, delayed info as document by pax to their employers. For the aiport management, they must also give an assistance like up to date info, drinks (like some major airports do). For side note, this incident is a wake up call for the gov't to consider building a bigger airport outside Manila with multiple runways.
I understand that the affected airline must provide assistance. But based on the post, the airline will only compensate if (A) Cancellation due to force majure for example the recent cancellation of PAL to YVR because of smoke from forest fire. (B) Cancellation due to airlines fault, I assume due to technical problems (C) Delayed in tarmac for 2 hours or more such as failure to comply with exact turn around time (D) Birth or death. So which category the other affected airline belong? so that we can really force them to "compensate"
There's a better graphics for this. I wonder why they aren't using..
ReplyDeletehttp://philippine-aviation-forum.29460.n7.nabble.com/file/n2/APBR-13Dec-141pm-FOR-OG.png
Hello. For the sake of argument. and enlightenment. In your own understanding, How would you classify the recent incident in NAIA? Will it be considered as "force majeure" or the chaos was cause by airlines themselves? Because, how will the airline do the process of compensation if first and foremost it is not their fault?
ReplyDeleteForce Majuere is an ACT OF GOD. Acts oF God are earthquake, Typhoon, flood, Tsunami and the like. Anything that has an intervention of man is an act of man alone.
DeleteI am aware and thanks. Now, as we all know, it is an accident committed by another airline. So here is my question, does the other affected airline has the responsibility to do the process of compensation? Since it is not their fault. Their operation must have went smoothly if the incident did not happened. Based on your post, the airline will only compensate if (A) Cancellation due to force majure (B) Cancellation due to airlines fault (C) Delayed in tarmac for 2 hours or more (D) Birth or death. So which category the other affected airline fall?
DeleteB and C. Note that compensation takes effect only when you are already checked in. If you are scheduled for departure you may be re-book for a later flight. That's what airlines actually did.
DeleteNow its a little bit clearer. Its the same here in canada. Airlines are required to compensate of any event/incident related that cause delays/cancellation to ONLY Checked In passengers. For those not, they can either cancel/re-book thier tickets or wait for the replacement flight. I have to have this comversation, because passengers who just arrived in airport, in the airport not checked in and going towards airport and are not checked in, not in plane nor arriving towards manila are those who are more actively asking for compensation and its all their side of story that I hear in all media outlets. So, it all showed that PAL and CebPac or any other airlines blamed for inconveniences and somehow look they did not do anything in which it is not basically thier fault
DeleteFrom my opinion: The latest incident in NAIA is not considered force majeur but airlines has no reason to compensate the pax. However, airlines must provide the necessary assistance to pax like rebooking free of charge, up to date info, delayed info as document by pax to their employers. For the aiport management, they must also give an assistance like up to date info, drinks (like some major airports do).
ReplyDeleteFor side note, this incident is a wake up call for the gov't to consider building a bigger airport outside Manila with multiple runways.
I understand that the affected airline must provide assistance. But based on the post, the airline will only compensate if (A) Cancellation due to force majure for example the recent cancellation of PAL to YVR because of smoke from forest fire. (B) Cancellation due to airlines fault, I assume due to technical problems (C) Delayed in tarmac for 2 hours or more such as failure to comply with exact turn around time (D) Birth or death. So which category the other affected airline belong? so that we can really force them to "compensate"
Delete