Reimbursement of canceled flights: another 20 baddies?<

UFC-Que Choisir is only suing 20 of the 57 airlines initially denounced for not having offered reimbursement for plane tickets canceled due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Air France-KLM in particular is criticized for not having announced a retroactive effect to this offer.

After having issued formal notice to 57 airlines using the health crisis as justification for non-reimbursement of canceled flights, contrary to European regulation 261/2004, and following a call to order from the European Commission, a certain number of carriers have modified their commercial measures and now offer the choice between a credit note (of longer or shorter validity) and cash reimbursement. But not all of them, according to the consumer defense association which lists on May 19, 2020 the twenty recalcitrants against which it “launches an action before the Paris Judicial Court”:

UFC-Que Choisir specifies this morning that the carriers are assigned "in the face of the persistence of bad practices and trompe l'oeil announcements": they continue to "violate the regulations by imposing on passengers vouchers as reimbursement of their canceled flight.

Air France is curiously in the list when it offers since May 15 the choice between reimbursement and credit, like its sister KLM moreover: but what the association criticizes it for is not having made this choice retroactive, for previously canceled flights. In doing so, the airline “continues to cause harm to the very many passengers on flights canceled since the start of the crisis. It is not acceptable that consumers are discriminated against according to the date of cancellation, the latter being moreover fixed at the discretion of the airline”.

How to make a Hanging Bathroom Shelf... - #gardens #gardening #garden #landscaping #diy https://t.co/2xrUXXCRdN https://t.co/bA2e5GLOoq

— Gardening DIY Life Wed Jan 13 13:51:20 +0000 2016

For the association, some companies among the twenty at fault "make consumers believe that the particular pandemic situation would allow them to offer only a voucher", while others "agree to reimburse their passengers but suspend the payment. payment until an indefinite date, or even after the end of the health crisis”.

Under these conditions, they deliberately violate the rights of passengers, but in addition they “give rise to a feeling of mistrust which will not help the restarting of their sector”. Indeed, as recalled by the European Commission, consumers “are also victims of the crisis, and some, faced with purchasing power problems, cannot accept an imposed credit note…”

UFC-Que Choisir specifies that while it would be entitled "to demand several thousand euros for the damage done to the collective interest of consumers", it simply wants companies to comply with regulations and respect the rights of consumers. consumers: and therefore "does not seek, for the moment, damages to encourage companies to quickly bring themselves into compliance".

And to specify that it “does not call on passengers to demand reimbursement”, if they have confidence in a credit and if they can do otherwise. The ball is in the court of the airlines, concludes the association: they have "a leeway" to encourage consumers to make such a choice, by improving their assets as the EC had suggested "in order to make a credible and reliable alternative to reimbursement only” – but on the condition that these assets are “guaranteed against any possible bankruptcy”…

©Lufthansa