[dmurray]

Airlines are vague about this (at least in Europe) because different types of problems mean different obligations to compensate passengers.

After the incident they will determine what's the least expensive lie they can plausibly give (perhaps the weather will change fast enough that you can blame the weather, perhaps you can't lie about an equipment failure when everyone in the airport sees you swap out the airplane). If they tell the passengers the truth at the time they risk being held to that later.

[jrjeksjd8d]

Thankfully the EU at least has regulations requiring compensation. On my last business trip to Europe I got 650 euros for an overnight delay. The last time I got delayed in the US I got a hearty "fuck off" from the gate agent.

[wouldbecouldbe]

On paper yes, but every time my flight was delayed in EU the airlines (KLM, Lufthansa, RyanAir) always had a cop out, weather, airport issues, etc. and I didn't get compensated. Even though other planes managed to fly in the same conditions.

[integralid]

If they refuse you can escalate or hire a company that will negotiate for some percentage of profit. In most cases I had this problem they gave me a refund, but sometimes I had to argue a bit.

[sdeframond]

I used to work at one such company. The process can take a long time but it is mostly hands-off for the traveller and success rates are high once the case has been taken.

Edit: and also, these claim-assistance companies work on a winning fee.

[wouldbecouldbe]

I’ve tried those as well, they only take easy cases you can do yourself as well

[NitpickLawyer]

Heh, on the other hand the one and only time I arrived hours earlier was in the US :) I was flying AMS to SFO via Portland, we cleared immigration unusually fast, and when I got to my gate (connecting flight was in like 4 hours) the lady there asked if I wanted to move to an earlier one, boarding in ~20 mins. I said sure, and I even got the checked-in luggage at SFO (she did say that there was a chance it'd get sent later).

[SoftTalker]

Airlines are often happy to do this as the earlier flight is likely not full, and allowing you on it costs them nothing while it opens a seat on the later flight which they can then sell to a standby passenger.

[pm3003]

Same, I was luckily just above the 1500 km threshold and got 400€, 3 hotel nights reimbursed (3 stars but 4 stars might have been ok), restaurants bills paid (beer included), a free replacement ticket , made new friends and visited museums. Lovely!

My boss and colleagues weren't delighted though...

[bluebarbet]

Yet the very fact that airlines routinely do put people up in hotels when flights get cancelled is an example of the exorbitant privilege of air travel (another being tax-free kerosene).

Nobody expects this to happen with train travel. Perhaps they should.

[pm3003]

I travel mostly by high speed train over very long distances and I fail to see it making more economical sense than air travel, even with taxed kerosene.

The costs of a high speed line are on the scale of 30 millions euros per km, with maintenance of 300,000 €/km/year. A TGV with 740 seats costs around 25 millions euros and has maintenance too. Most of the operating costs are per trip, a TGV typically does 2 to 3 500km trips per day.

A mid-range plane like the A320neo costs around 100 millions euros for 190 passengers and typical operating costs of 5 millions for a 2 flights per day average. A lot of these costs are hourly costs (fuel and maintenance) and airport costs. Fuel is 10%.

In France, trains and especially high-speed trains are heavily subsidised with a lot of tickets paid under various incentivized and subsidized schemes. SNCF (trains and railways) receives between 10 and 20 billions euros per year from various government entities (depending on what you include), i.e. 20% to 35% of revenue. There are also indirect subsidies through corporate tax schemes like commuting exemptions. Finally, long haul buses have long been forbidden and considered a threat to the train monopoly, and after a short golden age of EU-led monopoly breaking, they have been again heavily regulated so they can hardly compete. Similarly, short-haul flights have been almost banned.

The train is more practical but when I hear it is on par with air travel economically and more environment friendly I fail to make sense of the numbers.

[bluebarbet]

My allusion was to environmental sustainability, not to the human construct of economic efficiency.

However counter-intuitive it may be, air travel is indeed far more energy-intensive, and therefore destructive, than train travel. Mainly due to the exponential increase of wind resistance with speed. On a planet of 9 billion people, airplanes will simply not be a sustainably form of transport by any metric.

[lmm]

Deutsche Bahn paid for my hotel and meal the last time my train was delayed, though I did have to make the booking myself and claim reimbursement.

[sdeframond]

They are required to by law I believe.

[pm3003]

The EU law applies, but companies get out of it by:

- encouraging you to take multiple tickets (so you can't claim compensation on the whole trip and becaise of missed transfers).

- saying it's not their doing (DB specialty).

- in some cases accepting an "alternate schedule" (typically by changing your ticket at the company's suggestion) will void any claims.

In some cases you have better chances hiring a taxi for 2000km and forcing the company to pay.

On the opposite, on (very expensive) French TGVs you get compensation starting at 30 minutes delay (connections counted) whatever the reason and SNCF will do their utmost to bring you to destination or ensure you get accomodation.