It's standard practice within the insurance world as well as aviation.Felipe skrev:That's exactly what I think as well. The rule that there is no compensation for delays when travelling home is a bit extreme. It implies people have extras of everything at home, and that is not always the case. It also allows companies to not bother that much and be less careful with what they are doing, reducing the quality of the service.I understand this is not SAS-specific. But IMO it doesn't make it "less worse" just because it is a standard practice in aviation. It's unfortunate that we can't do much about it...Klicka för att utvidga...
It takes one to know one!Felipe skrev:It also allows companies to not bother that much and be less careful with what they are doing, reducing the quality of the service.Klicka för att utvidga...
Not on purpose, but if they had to deal with consequences in case it happened, they for sure would be more financially motivated to invest in a more efficient transfer between flights. More employees, for example.pswe skrev:It takes one to know one!Do you think airlines on purpose would delay baggage? And in addition keep track of which bags belong to travellers on their way home?Klicka för att utvidga...
I actually don‘t think it is ”extreme” as I mentioned before, vast majority of people do not encounter significant problems when it’s delayed on the way home.Felipe skrev:That's exactly what I think as well. The rule that there is no compensation for delays when travelling home is a bit extreme. It implies people have extras of everything at home, and that is not always the case. It also allows companies to not bother that much and be less careful with what they are doing, reducing the quality of the service.I understand this is not SAS-specific. But IMO it doesn't make it "less worse" just because it is a standard practice in aviation. It's unfortunate that we can't do much about it...Klicka för att utvidga...
It's already very costful too handle delayed luggage since they need to be pay extra for delivering it to the your home or wherever you are. No Airline delay bag on purpose, it does cost them a lot, but sometimes things doesn't go as planned, planes are delayed, airspace shut down, -40 degrees in Sweden and trying to operate normal...Felipe skrev:Not on purpose, but if they had to deal with consequences in case it happened, they for sure would be more financially motivated to invest in a more efficient transfer between flights. More employees, for example.Klicka för att utvidga...
Agree.mbglo skrev:Just chiming in here, I may be completely off here, but my view is slightly different from the other:It seems crucial to first establish if an agreement was reached with SAS regarding the new ticket. Given that you've made the payment and the ticket has been issued (as per SAS' conditions of carriage, which state that the ticket confirms the contract of carriage), it's reasonable to assume an agreement was formed.The next consideration involves the authority of the person on the phone to enter into an agreement that would contradict the Eurobonus' terms. I would say that a SAS agent would be deemed to have implied authority (ställningsfullmakt) to represent SAS. Hence, if this holds true, the agreement would likely be valid.If we accept these premises, it appears SAS has indeed canceled your flight. Consequently, you could be entitled to compensation under EC261/2004 (600 EUR per passenger) and reimbursement for any additional costs incurred.Taking into account Sweden's emphasis on consumer rights, I think that you should notneed to know that the booking potentially was against the initial terms and conditions.Klicka för att utvidga...
SAS employee was surely wrong. But you are insisting that your "ignorance" of T&C is acceptable. It is not. T&C are like laws, and law does not admit ignorance. You can't escape a speed ticket simply saying "sorry officer, I didn't know about the limit", right?Felipe skrev:I still do not agree it was my mistake that I accepted a change offered by a SAS employee. But I respect your opinion. Blame me if you want, I still think SAS is wrong here.Klicka för att utvidga...
Was this directed at me since you mention ”hair care products”? In my post I repeatedly said how I think it’s very reasonable that it’s not compensated home bound. I do feel very distressed without things I need and I of course do whatever I can to avoid it. I was merely making the point of how I think it’s reasonable that they don’t usually compensate anything when you are coming home ALTHOUGH there are some exceptions for some people who actually does have troubles if not prepared. I am prepared but somebody like me who’d traveled for the first time wouldn’t be. I never said that it should be compensated for those people either, what I said was that it’s still reasonable that it’s not compensated. My point from the start to the end being that it’s not a problem for vast majority of people hence no compensation when coming home is reasonable, nothing else.Hachans skrev:Not having spare things at home constitutes bad planning from the passenger, not the airline and hence isn’t compensated and shouldn’t be either. If you know you suffer from emotional distress from not having your hair care products, it is up to you to make sure you have extra at home or bring some in your carry on.I know I suffer from bad migraines and I’d never check in my medication for that. I’d be hard pressed to complain to the airline if I check it in and it gets stuck somewhere.Klicka för att utvidga...
What if said officer was sitting right next to you in the car and told you that the speed limit was 60kmh/h while in reality it was 40. Would it be fair for him/her to give you a ticket for the false information given to you? That would be a more correct analogy.Pierluigi skrev:SAS employee was surely wrong. But you are insisting that your "ignorance" of T&C is acceptable. It is not. T&C are like laws, and law does not admit ignorance. You can't escape a speed ticket simply saying "sorry officer, I didn't know about the limit", right?Sent from my SM-S918B using TapatalkKlicka för att utvidga...
Thanks for the detailed and reasonable response. Will definitely try this!mbglo skrev:Just chiming in here, I may be completely off here, but my view is slightly different from the other:It seems crucial to first establish if an agreement was reached with SAS regarding the new ticket. Given that you've made the payment and the ticket has been issued (as per SAS' conditions of carriage, which state that the ticket confirms the contract of carriage), it's reasonable to assume an agreement was formed.The next consideration involves the authority of the person on the phone to enter into an agreement that would contradict the Eurobonus' terms. I would say that a SAS agent would be deemed to have implied authority (ställningsfullmakt) to represent SAS. Hence, if this holds true, the agreement would likely be valid.If we accept these premises, it appears SAS has indeed canceled your flight. Consequently, you could be entitled to compensation under EC261/2004 (600 EUR per passenger) and reimbursement for any additional costs incurred.Taking into account Sweden's emphasis on consumer rights, I think that you should notneed to know that the booking potentially was against the initial terms and conditions.Klicka för att utvidga...
In Sweden, you as the driver are responsible to drive the car according to the laws and regulations no matter what anyone in the car says, no matter who that person is. So yes, you are 100% at fault and responsible for diving to fast in that case.Felipe skrev:What if said officer was sitting right next to you in the car and told you that the speed limit was 60kmh/h while in reality it was 40. Would it be fair for him/her to give you a ticket for the false information given to you? That would be a more correct analogy.Klicka för att utvidga...
You're missing one thing here. SAS can't cancel the flight, they can cancel a ticket but that's not the same thing.mbglo skrev:If we accept these premises, it appears SAS has indeed canceled your flight. Consequently, you could be entitled to compensation under EC261/2004 (600 EUR per passenger) and reimbursement for any additional costs incurred.Klicka för att utvidga...
I expect you to be able to read the speed limit signs and follow what's written on them, instead of threatening to sue the Police.Felipe skrev:What if said officer was sitting right next to you in the car and told you that the speed limit was 60kmh/h while in reality it was 40. Would it be fair for him/her to give you a ticket for the false information given to you? That would be a more correct analogy.Klicka för att utvidga...
There are many ifs and buts here and hearsay. Most likely a new ticket was never issued, since it was send to backoffice and they stopped the reissue.mbglo skrev:It seems crucial to first establish if an agreement was reached with SAS regarding the new ticket. Given that you've made the payment and the ticket has been issued (as per SAS' conditions of carriage, which state that the ticket confirms the contract of carriage), it's reasonable to assume an agreement was formed.Klicka för att utvidga...
This analogy is not right. Most of us agree that OP should have been aware of the ticket conditions to avoid the issues he suffered, but your statement is just plain wrong; none of us can for certain say what the legal effect of the entirety of SAS's terms and conditions are. It's a recognized legal principle that someone cannot say they were unaware of the law, but the same does not go for terms and conditions. I'm allergic to people making this type of definitive statements when it's clearly incorrect.Pierluigi skrev:SAS employee was surely wrong. But you are insisting that your "ignorance" of T&C is acceptable. It is not. T&C are like laws, and law does not admit ignorance. You can't escape a speed ticket simply saying "sorry officer, I didn't know about the limit", right?Sent from my SM-S918B using TapatalkKlicka för att utvidga...