Actually Europe has a lot of exceptions to this ruling. Everything considered “gods work” yes bad weather is included and things like union strikes are of higher force and the airlines can’t be made responsible for it. Just to add some clarification to the European regulation. But it at least is easy to look up and compare with one’s situation. But airlines pay if the f up - as long as the passenger asks for it and requests it.
You don't want to create a financial incentive for an airline to take off when the weather is poor. An airline can't change the weather nor can it change how its equipment responds to that weather; all you'd be doing is creating a financial incentive for them to take more risk than they currently would. As Jan notes, European / UK delay penalties don't cover weather delays.
Airports can choose to declare a ground hold, often if conditions are too hazardous for people to work outside. Pilots and airlines can also independently choose to delay, redirect or cancel a flight due to weather.
If airlines want to avoid ripple effects from hub weather, what they’d do is increase the delays built into their multi-stop schedules. Each plane does fewer stops per day. Every ticket costs more; there’s fewer flights to choose from, etc.
I was on a flight recently where they didn’t choose to hold for weather. We ended up making 3 failed landing attempts, then setting down at an alternate airport. Two people passed out and had to be taken off by medical. Neither airport was closed in those conditions, other planes elected to not try it, ours decided they’d go for it. Not good to incentivize.
Delaying takeoff because of weather/congestion on the destination is a more complicated subject than because of weather at the point of takeoff. It also is more likely to legitimately run into unexpected conditions, especially for a long flight. I'm not sure how the systems in place for that work today, but there are some (I've been at a terminal where an anrgy passenger couldn't get it through their thick head that the reason the plane wasn't loading was because of weather at the destination). Planes do have to get permission of air traffic control to attempt a landing. Your experience sounds like a very unpleasant one, but I think that's an unusual case.
It’s not just about the destination. Pilots have to evaluate weather along the whole route. Best practice is to start with the assumption you shouldn’t take off, then try to validate it’s ok. They’ll also consult with their airline operations. All of which is to say, there’s a lot of subjective decision making about what’s safe.
Planes having multiple passengers injured due to turbulence is a reasonably frequent problem - it’s the most common cause of passenger injuries. Dozens per year in the US alone. I think of flying as very safe but one of the reasons it is, is because they try hard to not fly through bad weather.
Here in SEA airlines are regularly pushing passengers on the next flight. The official argument is that the flight is not going to happen but I think they do it opportunistic based on passenger numbers. The whole process is announced 1-2hours before flight so it’s hard to make arrangements. I basically need to treat these flights in brackets. There are obviously also no penalties for them. It’s a shady game like extra fees that are making more and more the rounds here - no comparison to what seems going on in the us - but they figured out. I just want transparency.
When they overbook they aren't allowed to just randomly pick someone to boot any more, they have to keep upping the offer until somebody takes it. In this case I think they were having to do it a lot because crew was needed in other cities and the flights they were supposed to go on had been cancelled
My sisters was once offered to fly economy instead of first/business for a sweet sum of around 800,- usd. So yeah the do that even shuffling passengers between classes.
Actually Europe has a lot of exceptions to this ruling. Everything considered “gods work” yes bad weather is included and things like union strikes are of higher force and the airlines can’t be made responsible for it. Just to add some clarification to the European regulation. But it at least is easy to look up and compare with one’s situation. But airlines pay if the f up - as long as the passenger asks for it and requests it.
You don't want to create a financial incentive for an airline to take off when the weather is poor. An airline can't change the weather nor can it change how its equipment responds to that weather; all you'd be doing is creating a financial incentive for them to take more risk than they currently would. As Jan notes, European / UK delay penalties don't cover weather delays.
It's already up to the airport and not the airline to make the call about when it's safe to take off. That obviously shouldn't be changed.
Airports can choose to declare a ground hold, often if conditions are too hazardous for people to work outside. Pilots and airlines can also independently choose to delay, redirect or cancel a flight due to weather.
If airlines want to avoid ripple effects from hub weather, what they’d do is increase the delays built into their multi-stop schedules. Each plane does fewer stops per day. Every ticket costs more; there’s fewer flights to choose from, etc.
I was on a flight recently where they didn’t choose to hold for weather. We ended up making 3 failed landing attempts, then setting down at an alternate airport. Two people passed out and had to be taken off by medical. Neither airport was closed in those conditions, other planes elected to not try it, ours decided they’d go for it. Not good to incentivize.
Delaying takeoff because of weather/congestion on the destination is a more complicated subject than because of weather at the point of takeoff. It also is more likely to legitimately run into unexpected conditions, especially for a long flight. I'm not sure how the systems in place for that work today, but there are some (I've been at a terminal where an anrgy passenger couldn't get it through their thick head that the reason the plane wasn't loading was because of weather at the destination). Planes do have to get permission of air traffic control to attempt a landing. Your experience sounds like a very unpleasant one, but I think that's an unusual case.
It’s not just about the destination. Pilots have to evaluate weather along the whole route. Best practice is to start with the assumption you shouldn’t take off, then try to validate it’s ok. They’ll also consult with their airline operations. All of which is to say, there’s a lot of subjective decision making about what’s safe.
Planes having multiple passengers injured due to turbulence is a reasonably frequent problem - it’s the most common cause of passenger injuries. Dozens per year in the US alone. I think of flying as very safe but one of the reasons it is, is because they try hard to not fly through bad weather.
Here in SEA airlines are regularly pushing passengers on the next flight. The official argument is that the flight is not going to happen but I think they do it opportunistic based on passenger numbers. The whole process is announced 1-2hours before flight so it’s hard to make arrangements. I basically need to treat these flights in brackets. There are obviously also no penalties for them. It’s a shady game like extra fees that are making more and more the rounds here - no comparison to what seems going on in the us - but they figured out. I just want transparency.
They auction for seats!?
When they overbook they aren't allowed to just randomly pick someone to boot any more, they have to keep upping the offer until somebody takes it. In this case I think they were having to do it a lot because crew was needed in other cities and the flights they were supposed to go on had been cancelled
My sisters was once offered to fly economy instead of first/business for a sweet sum of around 800,- usd. So yeah the do that even shuffling passengers between classes.