Southeastern - Lies, damn lies. and statistics?

[PTF62]

Interesting if true - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...r-Southeastern-Trains-delay-compensation.html

Southeastern managing to avoid paying discounts on season tickets due to poor performance. They had to run more than 82% of trains on time, and managed to achieve 82.04%.

But, apparently the trains that they cancelled when they ran emergency timetables recently don't count towards the target...

 

[theblackwatch]

But, apparently the trains that they cancelled when they ran emergency timetables recently don't count towards the target...

To be fair that is standard poicy among all TOCs - and isn't something new. Unsprprisingly, the press make it sound like it is.

 

[atomicdanny]

If it is true no doubt the MPs, and passengers will want Govia's franchises removed... but then again it is from the media so its bound to be very biased against the railways!

There is one thing that I hate is when I see comments like "typical Southeastern just getting more profits" or "Southeastern all trains are always late or cancelled" or we want free season tickets for compensation... The last three seem to be mostly on the daily mail though (I've seen a few of those!)

 

[PTF62]

To be fair that is standard poicy among all TOCs - and isn't something new. Unsprprisingly, the press make it sound like it is.

You are correct, but that is not the point being made.

I would suggest that the management of Southeastern knew precisely how close they were to the 82% target, and like any other business target, those responsible for delivering the target would have been made very aware that they needed to meet it.

The question is, did this have any impact on the decision to put in place an emergency timetable, which helped Southeastern get over the target by 0.4%, or was it a decision taken without any consideration of the 82% target.

 

[Failed Unit]

Yep all TOCs are as bad Scotrail has just done the same thing itself. Many void days to avoid their appalling snow performance getting counted. I know the snow isn't the TOCs fault and nor is the fact that 170s can't run in it. But I agree with the RMT on this one that the TOCs use emergency timetables too easily to avoid the statistics getting counted.

 

[wintonian]

I do think passengers should get something when a TOC runs an emergency timetable and the services the passenger uses aren’t particular frequent (say every 20min for example for suburban London services or 30min or hourly London to New Street) or are somewhat more overcrowded than normal. At the same time TOC's aren’t responsible for the weather, so even some vouchers for free tea and coffee would do and may make people think that the TOC's are trying to do what they can.

 

[Failed Unit]

Scotrail emergency timetable for Edinburgh - Glasgow was every 30 mins operated by 3 car trains rather than every 15 minutes operated by 6 car trains. Passengers at intermediate stations couldn't use it because of the overcrowding. So although the void days are nice it is not much help to flexipass customers who couldn't use their tickets before the expired. I think in an emergency timetable reductions in frequency should be included in the cancellations stats. Ie Edinburgh - Glasgow should be shown as 50% cancelled as passengers didn't have 24 hours notice it was happening.

 

[PTF62]

I think in an emergency timetable reductions in frequency should be included in the cancellations stats.

A valid point, but this case raises the issue of is there any oversight of when it is appropriate to introduce an emergency timetable.

If it is because it is impossible to run a normal service, fair enough.

However, if it is merely difficult to run a normal service, but those difficulties are enough to cause the TOC to incur Delay/Repay compensation or fail to meet its reliability statistics and thus have to pay compensation, then is that acceptable?

 

[Old Timer]

Why should the Railways be singled out though as the only transport operators who have to pay compensation for delays ?

Firstly it will obviously encourage a TOC to try to operate an emergency service, especially when the weather is bad, but also do not forget that Network Rail also benefit from operating emergency services.

Secondly as a TOC is a Company, the Directors have a LEGAL duty to work in the interests of their SHAREHOLDERS, and if that means reducing financial risk then that is what they are required to do by Company Law.

I think few people realise here that TOCs are not here to provide some sort of public service outside that which may be Contracted, their legal duty in operating is to maximise earnings for their shareholders, and to act in the best interests of the shareholders.

 

[wintonian]

Why should the Railways be singled out though as the only transport operators who have to pay compensation for delays ?

Firstly it will obviously encourage a TOC to try to operate an emergency service, especially when the weather is bad, but also do not forget that Network Rail also benefit from operating emergency services.

Secondly as a TOC is a Company, the Directors have a LEGAL duty to work in the interests of their SHAREHOLDERS, and if that means reducing financial risk then that is what they are required to do by Company Law.

I think few people realise here that TOCs are not here to provide some sort of public service outside that which may be Contracted, their legal duty in operating is to maximise earnings for their shareholders, and to act in the best interests of the shareholders.

And thus that is what may be wrong with privatisation.

 

[PTF62]

Why should the Railways be singled out though as the only transport operators who have to pay compensation for delays?

What about airlines? They are liable to pay quite substantial amounts for delayed and cancelled flights, and for denied boarding.

Secondly as a TOC is a Company, the Directors have a LEGAL duty to work in the interests of their SHAREHOLDERS, and if that means reducing financial risk then that is what they are required to do by Company Law.

But they also have to operate within the terms that they were granted to operate that service by the government.

The question is, and I will admit I do not know the answer, is under what conditions are TOCs allowed to operate an emergency service? In fact are there any rules?

If not, then if a TOC was very close to failing its reliability target and due to pay compensation, then as far as the shareholders are concerned, it would be entirely sensible to declare an emergency timetable of one train per day, even if there were no problems at all on the lines, just make sure that it would definitely run to schedule.

However if the terms under which they were granted to operate the service, are that they should only declare an emergency timetable when it is not possible to run a normal timetable, then the company should not declare an emergency timetable merely to avoid compensation and increase profits.

In such circumstances I could envisage that not only would it mean that the TOC was in breach of the terms that they were granted to operate the service, but could also be open to civil claims from passengers denied compensation by that breach.

 

[Old Timer]

What about airlines? They are liable to pay quite substantial amounts for delayed and cancelled flights, and for denied boarding..

EU airlines however there are considerably more airlines than EU registered.

The delay payments start at 2 hours which offers something like 25%. Compare that to XC which offers 50% after 30 minutes.

 

[wintonian]

EU airlines however there are considerably more airlines than EU registered.

The delay payments start at 2 hours which offers something like 25%. Compare that to XC which offers 50% after 30 minutes.

They also give refreshment vouchers and those that have bothered are normally covered by travel insurance if they are not traveling on a domestic flight.

But they also have to operate within the terms that they were granted to operate that service by the government.

The question is, and I will admit I do not know the answer, is under what conditions are TOCs allowed to operate an emergency service? In fact are there any rules?

A couple of good points there, what are the rules?

 

[PTF62]

EU airlines however there are considerably more airlines than EU registered.

The compensation rules apply to all airlines flying in and out of the UK, irrespective of where the airline is registered.

The delay payments start at 2 hours which offers something like 25%. Compare that to XC which offers 50% after 30 minutes.

No, the payments can be very substantial, and have no relationship to the price of the ticket. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2006/feb/22/britishairways.theairlineindustry

I assume you recall Ryanair complaining about all the costs they had to pay out for hotels, meals, etc, for passengers caught up in the ash cloud.

 

[wintonian]

I assume you recall Ryanair complaining about all the costs they had to pay out for hotels, meals, etc, for passengers caught up in the ash cloud.

Yes it seems that a precedent was almost set, which brings us back to the age old question; should transport operators be able to insert Force majeure clauses into their contracts? Personally I think so as that is what insurance is for.

 

[PTF62]

Yes it seems that a precedent was almost set, which brings us back to the age old question; should transport operators be able to insert Force majeure clauses into their contracts? Personally I think so as that is what insurance is for.

But since Ryanair (et al) knew the EU Regulations for compensation, wouldn't it have been smart for them to take out insurance.

 

[wintonian]

But since Ryanair (et al) knew the EU Regulations for compensation, wouldn't it have been smart for them to take out insurance.

I don't know can they get insurance to cover their legal obligations in this way?

I also seem to remember some of them saying that they shouldn’t have to pay compensation for as that is what the passengers insurance should cover and if they choose not to take any out then that was up to them.

To contradict myself there are some things like acts of god insurance is impossible to find, happily the weather isn’t normally counted as such but volcanoes very often are.

 

[PTF62]

I cannot imagine that an airline could not get insurance against something like the ash cloud, given that you can insure against other acts of god like hurricanes, it is just probably very expensive and therefore cheaper to self-insure. I also suspect that until the ash cloud occurred they had not even thought that it was possible for UK airspace to be shut down for so long.

As for them not having to pay compensation, why should the passengers take out insurance, given that the law obliged the airlines to pay compensation. Even if the passengers did have insurance, the insurers could refuse to pay, since they only pay out on losses that you suffer, and since the airlines are obliged to pay compensation there is no loss.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I cannot imagine that an airline could not get insurance against something like the ash cloud, given that you can insure against other acts of god like hurricanes, it is just probably very expensive and therefore cheaper to self-insure. I also suspect that until the ash cloud occurred they had not even thought that it was possible for UK airspace to be shut down for so long.

You insure against risk. The risk with hurricanes is far far higher than the risk of a volcano blowing and causing an ash cloud covering half the northern hemisphere.

 

[Old Timer]

The Ryanair argument was based upon the fact that it is unreasonable to expect an airline offering cheap no frills deals to become liable for significant costs which far exceed the revenue generated.

There is also the question of why should an airline be forced to take financial responsibility for reimbursing passengers for acts which are quite outside of an Airline's control.

The bigger picture which always seesm to get lost on the proponents of the compensation culture, is that ultimately the passenger will always pay. That is a fact of life.

Recently we have seen the cost of motor insurance rise dramatically as a result of the compensation culture and the fact the people are instructing the Compensation Lawyers at the same time as reporting the accident.

No Company is in business to lose money. They provide a service for which their customers pay. If the customers want a solid gold service then they must expect to pay for that privilege.

Cheap airlines operate on the basis that you pay the minimum for minimal standards and minimal liability. If you want it otherwise then pay the higher price and travel with a National Carrier.

 

[wintonian]

Cheap airlines operate on the basis that you pay the minimum for minimal standards and minimal liability. If you want it otherwise then pay the higher price and travel with a National Carrier.

They do have a point, they operate on the basis of optional extras, and insurance is an optional extra which the passenger does not have to buy.

 

[PTF62]

The Ryanair argument was based upon the fact that it is unreasonable to expect an airline offering cheap no frills deals to become liable for significant costs which far exceed the revenue generated.

But they knew the rules when they entered the game. No point moaning when it goes wrong.

There is also the question of why should an airline be forced to take financial responsibility for reimbursing passengers for acts which are quite outside of an Airline's control.

Because our elected politicians have decided that the airlines should take the risk, rather than passengers.

The bigger picture which always seesm to get lost on the proponents of the compensation culture, is that ultimately the passenger will always pay. That is a fact of life.

Absolutely, but as an individual I am happier that the large cost of the risk is spread amongst the amongst the hundreds of thousands of passengers transported by the ariline, rather than being borne solely by me.

Recently we have seen the cost of motor insurance rise dramatically as a result of the compensation culture and the fact the people are instructing the Compensation Lawyers at the same time as reporting the accident.

Actually I have seen my motor insurance premiums fall dramatically over the last few years.

No Company is in business to lose money. They provide a service for which their customers pay. If the customers want a solid gold service then they must expect to pay for that privilege.

I agree.

Cheap airlines operate on the basis that you pay the minimum for minimal standards and minimal liability. If you want it otherwise then pay the higher price and travel with a National Carrier.

I am quite happy flying Ryanair; stupidly cheap prices, brand new planes, on time flights, etc. Yes you pay for luggage, food, early boarding, etc, but only if you want them.

The problem for Ryanair (and similar) is that the EU doesn't agree with the logic that if you charge cheap prices you can avoid complying with the EU airline compensation rules.

 

[Failed Unit]

From the experience I had from the TOCs some did well others did badly irrespective of if the motive was to avoid delay-repay.

East Coast put out the emergency timetable as it was clear that it was impossible to meet a 125mph timetable during falling snow. This was published the day before and gave times at all calling points. Ap users were allowed to depart early so the still got to their destination on time. Journey times to Edinburgh from London were typically 2 hours longer. They did the right thing as passengers knew what to expect even if it gave less chance if compensation - I am sure most passengers were happy with the advanced information.

Contrast this to Scotrail. Look the night before about what to expect nothing! In fact they changed their mind during the day about what they were doing. No one disputed the need for the emergency timetable. What annoyed people was it was not published at all and altered during the day. Edinburgh - Glasgow at 15 and 45 minutes past the hour. Then at 00 and 30 minutes past the hour. No idea of when trains would turn up at intermediate stations. 75% reduction in seats available. If people knew the day before that the reduced service would only have 3 coaches then they may have made the choice not to go to the station. It is not the fact the emergency timetable ran that annoys most people in Scotland - it was the lack of information provided that people want to see first punished for. If east coast could why couldn't first. It did make people feel that as everything was so short notice it should be recorded against them. They feel the void days are get out of jail free Scotrail.

Not sure if southeastern were a Scotrail or East coast during the disruption.

 

[Old Timer]

...Actually I have seen my motor insurance premiums fall dramatically over the last few years.

Well then you have been lucky, because that is not the experience of others.

The problem for Ryanair (and similar) is that the EU doesn't agree with the logic that if you charge cheap prices you can avoid complying with the EU airline compensation rules.

Sorry but there actually IS a degree of sympathy for that amongst the EU MEPs.

Anyway that does not matter as Ryanair's term of booking reveal.....

Ryanair does not provide monetary compensation under Article 7 of EU Regulation 261/2004 for flights which are delayed or cancelled for reasons beyond Ryanair's control (extraordinary circumstances). You may therefore wish to ensure that you have suitable private insurance cover in force to cover such eventualities. Your rights under EU Regulation 261/2004 are unaffected, so in the case of denied boarding, flight cancellation or a delay in excess of two hours; a written notice setting out the rules for compensation and assistance in line with such Regulation will be provided to affected passengers who present themselves to our staff at the airport service desks.

 

[PTF62]

From the experience I had from the TOCs some did well others did badly irrespective of if the motive was to avoid delay-repay.

My experience with FCC was that they tried to run a normal service, when an emergency timetable would have been more sensible, and then ran an emergency timetable when things had actually got better.

When they were suffering from the overhead line and snow problems on the Great Northern route at the beginning of the Christmas week, they were trying to run a normal service.

By the time the overhead line problems were sorted out, and the snow had started to subside and things were looking up, they then decided to run an emergency timetable on the Thursday and Friday?

Which takes me back to the original point, the decision to operate an emergency timetable seems to be fairly arbitrary, and a TOC may think it can get away with using an emergency timetable to avoid paying compensation.

 

[Old Timer]

The compensation rules apply to all airlines flying in and out of the UK, irrespective of where the airline is registered.

From South African Airways ticket terms and conditions

9 Carrier undertakes to use its best efforts to carry the passenger and baggage with reasonable dispatch. Times shown in timetables or elsewhere are not guaranteed and form no part of this contract. Carrier may without notice substitute alternate carriers or aircraft, and may alter or omit stopping places shown on the ticket in case of necessity. Schedules are subject to change without notice. Carrier assumes no responsibility for making connections.

From the Aeroflot website

Information about rights of air passengers in case of flight delay or flight cancellation
Aeroflot aims to inform its passengers who are affected by delays or cancellations of flights as soon as possible, and to assist its customers locally. Based on the applicable General Conditions of Carriage, effective as of 20 October, 2007, Aeroflot offers the following compensatory products and services:

1. In case of flight irregularities (delay/cancellation), aircraft replacement, or other unexpected circumstances, passengers are eligible for either a single free of charge phone call or fax transmission.
2. In the event of delays of more than four hours, passengers (independent of the flight class and «OK Status» of their ticket«) are eligible for meals and drinks corresponding to the waiting time and the time of day (either breakfast, lunch or dinner).
3. Drinks will be offered for delays of two hours or more.
4. If the delay is six hours or more during the night, or eight hours or more during the day, Aeroflot provides checked-in passengers (or with «OK Status») with hotel accommodation plus catering services and transfer to and from the hotel.

From the TAM (Brazillian) Airline website

Art. 22nd When the transportation company cancels the flight, or the flight is late, or, even, if there is a postponing because of excess passengers, the airline company must accommodate the passengers with confirmed reservation in another flight, of its own or similar company, within at most 4 (four) hours from the time foreseen in the airline ticket.
§ 1st If this deadline cannot be fulfilled, the user can decide to: travel in another flight, through endorsement, or reimbursement of the airline ticket.
§ 2nd If the user agrees to travel in another flight on the same day or on the following day, the transportation company must provide him with communication, lodging and meals in adequate locations, as well as transportation to and from the airport should that be the case.
§ 3rd This also applies to terms of this article and paragraphs when the flight is interrupted or runs late above 4 (four) hours at a stop airport.

From the Air New Zealand website

9.2 CANCELLATION AND RE-ROUTING
9.2.1 We reserve the right to substitute an aircraft and/or Alternative Carrier. If we cancel a flight, fail to operate a flight reasonably according to the schedule, fail to stop at your destination or Stopover, or cause you to miss a connecting flight on which you hold a confirmed reservation on a Conjunction Ticket, you shall have the option, subject to our agreement, either:
9.2.1.1 to be carried on another of our scheduled services on which space is available in the same class, or where space is not available, on the services of an Alternative Carrier, in either case without additional charge or refund to you; or
9.2.1.2 to be re-routed to the next Stopover or destination shown on your Ticket by our own services or those of an Alternative Carrier. If the fare and charges for the revised routing are lower than what you have paid, we shall refund the difference;
9.2.1.3 if neither of the above alternatives is acceptable to you, we will make a refund or provide a credit in accordance with the provisions of 10.2 and we shall have no further liability to you.
9.3 If we are unable to provide previously confirmed space, we shall provide compensation as required by any applicable law or pursuant to our denied boarding compensation policy. (Further information is available from us on request).
9.4 Subject to Article 17 of these Conditions, nothing contained in this Article 9 shall affect any rights you may have under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (New Zealand) if it is applicable.

None of these offer compensation for delays above that IATA agreement.

Compensation only applies to Airlines registered within the EU.

 

[PTF62]

Anyway that does not matter as Ryanair's term of booking reveal.....

Ryanair does not provide monetary compensation under Article 7 of EU Regulation 261/2004 for flights which are delayed or cancelled for reasons beyond Ryanair's control (extraordinary circumstances). You may therefore wish to ensure that you have suitable private insurance cover in force to cover such eventualities. Your rights under EU Regulation 261/2004 are unaffected, so in the case of denied boarding, flight cancellation or a delay in excess of two hours; a written notice setting out the rules for compensation and assistance in line with such Regulation will be provided to affected passengers who present themselves to our staff at the airport service desks.

Ryanair are correct they do not have to pay compensation for flights which are delayed or cancelled for reasons beyond Ryanair's control (extraordinary circumstances), and that is the same for all airlines. The compensation mentioned are the fixed amounts that are payable, e.g. €250 for delays of over 3 hours for flights up to 1500km.

However even if the delay is beyond the airline's control (as with the ash cloud), they are still liable to provide assistance at the airport and reimbursement of hotel and meal costs due to the delay. That was Ryanair's complaint at the time, and although they have been lobbying MEPs hard, nothing has changed.

A fair point that it doesn't apply to non-EU registered airlines flying from outside the EU into the EU. However all flights from an EU airport are covered, irrespective of where the airline is registered, as well as flights to the EU on EU registered airlines have to comply.

http://www.auc.org.uk/default.aspx?catid=306&pagetype=90&pageid=4405

 

[Old Timer]

...A fair point that it doesn't apply to non-EU registered airlines flying from outside the EU into the EU. However all flights from an EU airport are covered, irrespective of where the airline is registered, as well as flights to the EU on EU registered airlines have to comply.

http://www.auc.org.uk/default.aspx?catid=306&pagetype=90&pageid=4405

Not correct, under International Law the EU cannot regulate the terms and conditions of a non-EU airline even when departing from an EU airport. This is done by International Agreement.

Third option in the list applies, as non-EU airlines are not allowed to stop intermediately within the EU.

Something to do with a one-sided restrictive practice I believe

 

[jkdd77]

Not correct, under International Law the EU cannot regulate the terms and conditions of a non-EU airline even when departing from an EU airport. This is done by International Agreement.

Third option in the list applies, as non-EU airlines are not allowed to stop intermediately within the EU.

Something to do with a one-sided restrictive practice I believe

I contacted the DfT a few months ago on this issue, and they told me, quoting chapter and verse from various Regulations, that the law applied to all airlines on all flights departing from the EU, including those airlines registered outside the EU. The law itself contains a clause stating that it may not be waived by mutual agreement.

If non-EU airlines don't like the law, they are free not to come here.

Any contractual terms to the contrary are automatically null and void.

 

[Failed Unit]

I must admit unusally I do have some sympathy with Mr O'leary on the EU regulations on volcano disruption. But when he says fig should not be covered I have less. The smaller airports used often don't have the equipment need for dealing with reduced visibility. Some airlines claim everything is extraordinary such as engine failures. But that is a matter for the regulators to sort out.

Last year east coast had to pay out a lot for the landslides between Newcastle and Edinburgh. I am not sure why the diversion via Carlisle could not be included as an emergency timetable.

Finally the EU airline -v- non EU airline thing. Not a level playing field agreed but it is also an advantage to the EU airline. It could gain them custom. Would you risk getting stuck in India because you picked a non-eu airline? No but that is why we buy insurance!