After a detour to Bangor, do I deserve a ticket refund?

As SAS Flight 910 from Newark to Copenhagen climbed to its cruising altitude on June 20, one of its air conditioning units malfunctioned, forcing it to make an emergency landing in Bangor, Maine.

One of the passengers onboard, Jay Hillman, says SAS mishandled the incident from start to finish, and even though the airline flew him to Denmark the next day, he wants a full refund.

Does he deserve it? And if so, should I help him get it?

Generally, airlines don’t compensate passengers for mechanical delays, so I was interested in hearing how this one was, as Hillman put it, “the worst flight of my life.”

After the emergency landing, passengers were sent to the Fairfield Inn in Bangor. For the next 12 hours, they heard nothing from SAS.

“It seemed we were forgotten,” says Hillman. “Finally a message came: ‘Be ready in 30 minutes to go to the airport.’ Rushing to be ready, I skipped lunch, hearing it would be served at the airport. It was not. Instead, there was a two-hour queue to get a new boarding pass, which had passengers waiting outside the terminal in the sun.”

Once onboard, things took a turn for the worse.

No one could tell me the intended departure time. We waited a couple more hours. The pilot assured us the problem was solved and the plane was safe.

Unfortunately, the air conditioner was not fixed — just disconnected. I have ridden more comfortably on buses in Mexico.

Can it get any worse? Yes, it can.

An hour into the flight the video system lost power in half the plane, and then the reading lamps failed, inspiring little confidence in the plane and leaving me with nothing to do but reflect on my destiny until dinner was served.

And then …

The woman next to me and I were stunned to find a long hair embedded in my chicken dish, because we had just said to each other this could not get any worse.

Hillman’s four-day weekend was abbreviated by one day as a result of this mechanical failure. Given the incompetence of SAS, he feels a full refund of his ticket is in order.

“I paid $1,500 for my round-trip ticket for my weekend in Copenhagen,” he says. “I spent that because SAS has always been timely, because I value a direct flight, and because I trust the SAS team’s pilots. I lost one of my three days on holiday to a miserable and disorganized voyage.”

The SAS contract of carriage (PDF) is confusing on this issue. Section 9.3.3. notes that for a delay of over five hours, you may be entitled to a full refund of your ticket, but that appears to be referencing the controversial EU 261 consumer regulation, which SAS would argue doesn’t apply to this flight.

Here’s how SAS responded to him.

Thank you for your correspondence regarding an irregularity experienced while traveling with SAS.

Due to the technical malfunction on board SK910/20JUN it was decided to perform safety landing at the nearest airport, which was in Bangor, Maine.

It is always our aim to minimize the strain and consequences imposed on our passengers when an irregularity occurs. Please accept our apologies for any lapse in service on this occasion.

We certainly regret that your travel plans were disrupted. Your disappointment and inconvenience is understandable. We, again, offer our sincere apologies.

As a gesture of good will, and to show our concern, under separate coverage we will be sending you gift vouchers in the amount of 300EUR. These vouchers are good for travel on SAS flights only and are valid for one year from the date of issue.

We value your patronage, and hope we shall have another opportunity of welcoming you aboard SAS again in the future and of serving you to your full satisfaction.

SAS remains at your service.

A 300 euro voucher? Not enough, says Hillman.

The more I consider this case, the more I think Hillman should argue that EU 261 applies to this mechanical delay. I note that the SAS definition of “extraordinary circumstances” is not in line with the most current definition as defined by the EU courts. There might be some room for negotiation.

But I don’t know if the laundry-list approach is as compelling, and I’m not sure if my involvement would change anything. But I would be willing to try, if you think it’s worth pursuing.

← Older Comments
  • Joe Farrell

    the point being that smoke in the cockpit on Airbus aircraft seems to be a fairly common occurrence requiring diversion. Thus – given the common nature of such events it is not ‘extra ordinary’ is it? I’ve been flying on Douglas, Boeing and even Convair jets since 1965 and have never had a smoke in the cabin / cockpit diversion. . . .

  • TonyA_says

    Joe, the FAA says it has about 900 smoke in cabin/cockpit reported each year. Now these are incidents that are SDR reported. I have read that many don’t bother to report at all, suggesting that 900 is a low number. Obviously with these many occurrences, no one can say these are very rare. That is not the argument.

    But EC261 use the term “extraordinary CIRCUMSTANCES” (not occurrences). Airlines can weasel out of paying compensation using this clause:

    An operating air carrier shall not be obliged to pay
    compensation [in accordance with Article 7], if it can prove that
    the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances
    which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable
    measures had been taken.

  • TonyA_says

    Are you disputing the weather and METAR measurements at the airport?

  • TonyA_says

    In the 2009 similar incident, SAS brought a mechanic all the way from Europe. I think some articles mentioned Boston and Toronto as having Airbus repair techs.

  • MarkieA

    I have a problem with this way at looking at things; it appears to be getting more prevalent these days, I don’t know. When you pay for something, there is a certain minimum level of quality you expect. Sure, it varies from person to person, but I would think that this OP’s experience wouldn’t meet anyone’s reasonable minimum. Service providers, especially, have been working hard to lower our expectations and, apparently, they are succeeding. “They got you there eventually.” Really? That’s your minimum requirement? Keep lowering those expectations; they love you.

  • TonyA_says

    @disqus_ELmgCm17og:disqus @Michael__K:disqus

    Dear Richard and Michael, I suggest you read EU261/2004 in its entirety.

    EC261 Right to Compensation clearly does NOT apply to this case. Why?

    The fact is the pilot made a divert because of smoke in the cabin/cockpit. A fact conveniently left out in the story.
    That emergency landing is an Unexpected Flight Safety Shortcoming.
    And, Number 14 of the Preamble of EC261 clearly states:

    (14) As under the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier.

    Therefore, he does not get Article 7, Right to Compensation.

    As we have read the OP is demanding a refund of his entire ticket. He does not have a right to that under EC261 because he opted to continue (re-routing) with his flights the next day on 21JUN (and I assumed he also took his return flight). Article 8, is a Right to reimbursement OR re-routing. Not both.

    The affected passengers have a Right to Care (Article 9) and they got it since they were put up and transported to and from hotels.

    That said, SAS does not owe the OP a cent. In fact he should be grateful for the 300 Euro certificate.

    Finally, in my opinion, those requesting for EU261 compensation should simply stick with the facts and forget including irrelevant statements like:
    a) the worst flight of my life
    b) I skipped lunch
    c) there was a two-hour queue to get a new boarding pass, which had passengers waiting outside the terminal in the sun
    d) the video system lost power in half the plane, and then the reading lamps failed, inspiring little confidence in the plane and leaving me with nothing to do but reflect on my destiny until dinner was served.
    e) The woman next to me and I were stunned to find a long hair embedded in my chicken dish
    f) I lost one of my three days on holiday to a miserable and disorganized voyage.

    If the OP was entitled to compensation, it would not have been due to these irrelevant complaints. EC261 compensation would be due to a delay, cancellation, or denied boarding only.

    Now that EU261 Compensation does NOT apply to the OP, and the airline already gave him a Euro 300 certificate, I wonder what leverage the OP still think he has?

  • TonyA_says

    Why so? Under USA rules the OP was not entitled to compensation or food and lodging unless the airline’s COCs explicit committed it to him (or for tarmac delay). In the USA the customer expectation is set in the COCs and the Passenger Service Plan statement. As for pricing, the airline is matching supply and demand so they can get maximize revenue.

    If we need to lower our expectations it is because there is a race to the bottom with regards to fares. We are simply getting what we are paying for.

    My wife took our cat to the vet this morning. She heard a famous comedian who was complaining that Delta would not allow his pets to travel with him to Europe. So he decided to use Delta Private Jets instead. The airline certainly loved his higher expectations and was willing to charge for it.

  • jim6555

    Something that I can’t understand is why the aircraft made an emergency landing due to a failed air conditioning system on day 1 and then operated with the air conditioning system still not functioning on day 2. Forget the technicalities. SAS mishandled the passenger situation on the ground in Bangor and in the air. The passengers endured much discomfort and inconvenience and therefore are entitled to much more than what was offered to Mr. Hillman,

  • TonyA_says

    The pilot diverted because of SMOKE IN CABIN. Regardless of the cause, smoke usually means FIRE, so it was prudent of the pilot to land as soon as possible and get it checked out. Note, most pilots remember Swissair 111 so there will be a strong tendency to land at the closest airport before they attempt to cross the Atlantic.

    While we do not really know how many AC Packs or fans were running, the MINIMUM number of equpiment that must be functional at DISPATCH is determined by the FAA MMEL for that type of aircraft.

    Regarding discomfort or inconvenience, there is no US DOT rule that requires airlines to compensate you for delays or cancellations. You have rights under the Montreal Convention, but you must prove the ‘damages’ in court. Thank goodness the OP was flying on a EU community carrier, otherwise there would not have been any discussion about EU261 rights. So even if you feel tremendous sympathy for the OP, unless we change US law to compensate for long delays and to require a certain level of care, then we are mostly dependent on the airlines “generosity”.

    Regarding SAS mishandling the situation in Bangor, Maine. SAS does not have operations in BGR airport. BGR is a small commercial airport with a very long runway used for military purposes. Therefore both SAS and the airport will have to work on a non-normal mode. Their primary concern is the SAFETY of all passengers and getting them to their final destination as soon as possible. I suggest that those criticizing SAS under these conditions explain how one can do a better job.

    Finally, I would not read too much with the media reports other than the fact the captain diverted the airplane because of smoke in the cabin. If you are that interested about what happened then you might want to search for an incident or SDR filing with the FAA.

  • Michael__K

    “unexpected flight safety shortcomings” means an unruly passenger, a bomb threat, etc.

    The courts have already spoken on this.

  • http://mikeoshea.net/ somnambulist

    He wasn’t presenting his groundwork for an EC261 case, per se. He was stating how he feels his flight was a failure from the point of view of a consumer. The fact that, from this, the blogger thinks he may have a case based on what you are short handing as “EC261″ is lovely, but is irrelevant, at least initially, to the OP. He wants a refund because of a miserable experience that he feels ruined his trip. In that case all of the above that you strangely, carefully list is in fact relevant.

    Tony, interestingly, does not seem to see this as an idea of ‘what’s right.’ i.e: Tony feels businesses should only be obligated based on whatever fine print is in whatever the law is (and, let’s face it, Tony probably feels any laws protecting consumers/people should be abolished). While that’s interesting, many of us view consumer cases from a POV of “fair play.” So, was this experience so terrible that the person deserves a refund? Or is the airline’s obligation merely to get you from point A to point B, regardless of your comfort? Are there any standards the airline should be required to meet, or, that we expect them to meet, in exchange for our ticket purchase?

    I get that Tony feels this is very strictly a question of what the airline can get away with, not what we would consider right or fair. But… having read some of Tony’s other comments… I think Tony may be a crazy person. So there’s also that.

  • TonyA_says

    Unfortunately that’s not how airline contracts work.
    As I said, if he felt that SAS ruined his vacation, then he has the right under the Montreal Convention to sue. He can try to file a claim under EU261 but I already gave y’all a preview of what the airline will probably do to deny his claim. But if you expect SAS just to refund his whole ticket for what he said happened, then you are not being realistic.

    There are a lot of shameful things airlines do. IMO, this is NOT one of them. If you have been reading this blog long enough, you will have probably recognized that I am not one sided pro-airline or pro-supplier.

    An airline is a carrier – a form of transportation. They can’t and won’t guarantee to take your from point A to B on time. That said, they cannot guarantee your vacation.

    I have been called worse than ‘crazy’ so I will let that be.:-)

  • Joe Farrell

    I don’t propose anything – EU261 takes care of the ‘what they need to do.’ The airline bought Airbus aircraft and smoke from AC pack circulating fans is quite common – it is not ‘extraordinary.’ The international airline needs to make the emergency but precautionary landing and then compensate its passengers if EU261 applies to the flight. . .

  • Joe Farrell

    No Tony but do you know what Mostly Cloudy means? That is NOT a METAR – the METAR shows:

    METAR KBGR 212053Z 02003KT 10SM FEW120 SCT250 27/18 A2974 RMK AO2 SLP069 T02720178 57015 $
    METAR KBGR 212153Z 03004KT 10SM FEW110 SCT250 27/18 A2974 RMK AO2 SLP067 T02720183 $
    METAR KBGR 212253Z 14003KT 10SM FEW100 27/19 A2973 RMK AO2 SLP063 T02720189 $
    METAR KBGR 212353Z 19005KT 10SM FEW120 24/17 A2974 RMK AO2 SLP067 T02440172 10278 20244 55001 $

    These show high cirrus clouds at 25,000 feet and scattered at best- in the REAL world these would be a sunny day in New England. Tony, you need to sit down and leave the ‘facts’ to the professionals . . .

  • BMG4ME

    This reminds me of that Stephen King movie where the plane got diverted to Bangor instead of Boston.

  • Rainbow_Zebras

    I appreciate the passenger’s frustrations – it has happened to me at times whilst flying in Europe with other airlines. As mad as we are about giving great customer service in my company there has to be a respectable limit in this case – what happens if everyone decided they wanted a full refund, there wouldn’t be many airlines left in business in my opinion.

    I personally feel SAS should offer the chap some kind of financial recompense for the loss of one day in Copenhagen.

    On the other hand just offering vouchers to the tune of EU300 to spend onboard doesn’t really sound great for the customer but at least it acknowledges the airline is listening.

  • MSJ

    Clearly no refund. I was on that plane aswell and yes the flight did not turn out as expected but SAS and the cabine crew did a great job at trying to get the best out of an unfortunate situation. Several of the statemens in the complain are also straight out untrue. As an example lunch WAS served at Bangor airport while we were waiting for checkin. The entertainment system in half of the plane DID NOT break down on the way to Copenhagen. Half of the airconditioner equipment on the plane was functional on the way to Copenhagen and after 15 min in the air the temperatur was normal (not like a mexican bus). These are just three examples and it makes me think that this guy is simply trying to turn this episode into cash.

← Older Comments