Airlines are facing renewed scrutiny over reports passengers stranded after Monday’s National Air Traffic Services (NATS) failure are having limits placed on the aid they can claim.
Consumer group Which? called out carriers that have allegedly been limiting the amount customers stuck overseas can claim for emergency overnight accommodation.
“We’ve seen worrying reports of passengers offered a bed for just one night and then left to their own devices, or told that there’s an arbitrary limit on the amount they can claim back.
“In fact, airlines should cover the cost of accommodation for the duration for the delay,” the group said.
Some 300,000 people are estimated to have been affected by Monday’s system failure, which saw UK air traffic controllers forced to input flight data manually for several hours.
Around 2,000 flights have been cancelled as a result of the issue, which is speculated to have been caused by incorrect incoming information, prompting the system to shut down.
“Particularly concerning are reports that some passengers are still waiting to be rerouted by their airlines,” Which? added on Thursday – three days after the air traffic control blip.
Questions have been asked how such an issue could be caused by something seemingly as minor as incorrect data being input to the system, with trade body International Air Transport Association (IATA) also arguing NATS should bear the cost to carriers.
This is estimated to have been around £100 million so far, according to the trade body’s boss Willie Walsh, who also slated regulator the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) over the event.
“Policymakers should take note,” he said previously – a claim echoed by Which? as it called on the government to give the CAA powers to impose direct fines on the industry.
“The law on what passengers should expect is crystal clear, so it’s absolutely unacceptable airlines continue to play fast and loose with the rules,” the consumer group said.
“Until the regulator has the enforcement powers it needs, airlines will continue to flaunt the rules without consequences.”