It's six months since the Volcano erupted in Iceland, sending huge plumes of smoke bellowing into the atmosphere for weeks. It caused chaos. Flights cancelled, thousands stranded abroad for days on end, spending hundreds on food and accommodation. EU regulations required airlines to offer compensation to those affected. Six months on, the skies might be back to normal. But it's the refunds that are now in chaos.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
If you were caught up in the volcanic ash cloud and your flight was cancelled, EU Regulation required airlines to offer you a refund or another flight at the earliest opportunity. Those who waited for a flight were entitled to meals, refreshments and hotel accommodation until a new flight became available...
(Do you have something to say about this story? Tell us what you think by emailing us here. Don't forget to include 'Volcano' in the subject line. Watchdog will publish a selection of viewers' comments underneath each story, both throughout and after the programme is on air. Please remember to include your name as you would like to see it published).
It sounds simple, but not it seems if you flew with KLM. Graham Johnston and his family flew to Istanbul with the Dutch carrier. The ash cloud descended and their flight home was cancelled, it was a whole week before KLM could get them home.
Graham knew as soon as he landed back in Edinburgh that he should make a claim, and that's exactly what he did. He submitted a claim for £1655.47 to cover their accommodation and food expenses for the extra week, but a full six months on KLM are only willing to pay for a mere one day's expense.
So what are passengers like Graham actually entitled to? Our reporter Riz Lateef met James Fremantle, from the Air Transport Users Council, to find out. James told us that the AUC feel that Graham's claim should be honoured by KLM; however, they are not surprised by the airline's response as they have received a number of similar complaints about KLM from other passengers.
Louisa Nelson and her children found themselves stranded in Malaga back in April. They were forced to pay for three additional nights before their airline, Monarch could fly them home resulting in £295 of expenses. She felt Monarch continuously fobbed her off to her insurance company.
James Fremantle is not surprised by Louisa's case and tells us he's seen this many times before. He went on to clarify that:
"The obligation is on the airlines under the EU rules to reimburse passengers for hotel and meals. Many airlines try to refer passengers to their insurance company, but as far as I know most insurance companies won't cover that."
BMIbaby is another airline whose response to the ash cloud continues to attract criticism. At Watchdog, we've been hearing from their disgruntled passengers continuously. What's worse is that some customers have actually saved the airline money.
When Richard Baker became stranded in Malaga, he suffered more stress than most. He's the main carer for his disabled wife and daughter, who were both at home in Leicestershire. Naturally, Richard was extremely concerned about the welfare of his family and because he didn't know how long he would be stranded for, he decided to take the initiative and sort out his own way home.
Those transport arrangements home were complicated and expensive. He can't claim for those, but Richard feels he should be refunded for his accommodation and food. After several months, BMI Baby offered to pay just £150 towards these expenses as 'a gesture of goodwill'. The real cost was nearly £400.
Richard was disappointed with such a small offer. After all, if he had continued to wait for the next available flight in Spain, the cost could have run into the thousands and he would have been putting in a much larger claim.
With the letter of the law, James says Richard doesn't have a right to get a reimbursement for his hotel costs because he accepted a refund of his ticket. Having said that, he thinks this is an example where airlines should show some flexibility.
So how do the airlines get away with it? James believes the regulation is very vague, it simply states that airlines need to pay for reasonable assistance to passengers.
Not all airlines have behaved like this, some have met their obligations as the EU clearly set out, but others have clearly let customers down. If you're one of those passengers, what should you do?
James says the AUC's advice is to keep trying and he welcomes people to get in touch with them as they may be able to help.
KLM response:
First and foremost: KLM did its utmost at the time of the air space closure to take passengers to their destinations as soon as possible.
KLM was the first airline to carry out test flights and we did everything within our power to convince the authorities that flying in (parts of) the European sky was possible. In our view, the closure of the airspace by the EU authorities was excessive.
With regard to the case of Mr. Johnston, we regret that we are not able to comment on individual cases however we will look into the case again.
KLM handles every case on an individual basis taking into account the particular circumstances. We do not avoid our responsibilities and reimburse reasonable costs.
The EU Commission and the European Council acknowledged the fact that its current Regulation [261] is not suitable for the extreme situation that occurred. Circumstances were totally beyond the control of individual airlines.
EC and Council announced in June that they will change the current Regulation.
We hope that EC will offer a solution for all EU member states. We ask for uniformity in order to have a level playing field for the airlines thereby giving similar expectations to consumers throughout the EU.
Monarch response
Watchdog - Ms Louisa Nelson
The closure of UK airspace in April and May 2010 as a result of the volcanic ash cloud forced the cancellation or suspension of over 500 Monarch flights and resulted in thousands of customers being stranded around the world.
Due to the exceptional circumstance and the numbers of passengers affected during the closure of UK airspace, it was not logistically possible for Monarch to arrange hotel accommodation and provide funds for food and drink to all its passengers whilst they were stranded. Monarch's overriding priority was the repatriation of its passengers as quickly as possible and the airline operated 85 additional flights repatriating 80,000 stranded passengers back to the UK in the fist seven days of UK airspace re-opening. Whilst UK airspace was closed Monarch also laid on two shuttle flights from the Spanish Islands of Majorca and Tenerife to Madrid to connect with coaches back to the UK as well as providing an additional fleet of coaches from mainland Europe.
Monarch appreciates that customers will have incurred additional costs whilst stranded and quickly introduced a process to ensure the prompt consideration of claims for the reimbursement of reasonable sums incurred in respect of basic overnight accommodation and sustenance.
Customers were advised that if they had booked their holiday through a tour operator, the provision of hotel accommodation would, in most cases, be arranged by their tour operator. Other customers were advised to contact their travel insurance provider in the first instance to establish the level of their insurance policy cover. If a customer's travel insurance did not cover them for the additional costs incurred as a result of the flight cancellations, Monarch would then consider claims for reasonable welfare. Monarch requested that a copy of the travel insurer's response be sent to them to ensure no duplication of payments for delay or cancellation was made.
Legal advice has been sought to ensure Monarch fulfils its obligations and a benchmark for claims has been applied. Requests for reasonable welfare are now being settled with customers.
Miss Louisa Nelson experienced a delay to the settlement of her claim as a copy of her travel insurer's response was not received by Monarch. However, this has now been received and Miss Nelson's claim has been settled.
bmibaby response:
bmibaby has made reasonable contributions to expenses incurred as a result of the ash cloud situation.
During the ash cloud situation it was our priority to get our customers home as soon as possible and when the air space re-opened on 21 April 2010 we offered a number of rescue flights from and to the UK.
A bmibaby flight may have shown full due to customers using our online check in facility, yet many customers made alternative travel arrangements home and therefore did not use their return flight booking. Therefore these seats would become available. As a result a large number of our customers were able to go on a standby list to get home sooner than originally booked.
We frequently updated our website to provide up to date news to our customers, and regular updates were available via our twitter channel @bmibaby_com (as per the example below), plus an extra call centre was set up to manage the unprecedented volume of calls.
Does every cloud have a silver lining?
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
If you were caught up in the volcanic ash cloud and your flight was cancelled, EU Regulation required airlines to offer you a refund or another flight at the earliest opportunity. Those who waited for a flight were entitled to meals, refreshments and hotel accommodation until a new flight became available...
(Do you have something to say about this story? Tell us what you think by emailing us here. Don't forget to include 'Volcano' in the subject line. Watchdog will publish a selection of viewers' comments underneath each story, both throughout and after the programme is on air. Please remember to include your name as you would like to see it published).
It sounds simple, but not it seems if you flew with KLM. Graham Johnston and his family flew to Istanbul with the Dutch carrier. The ash cloud descended and their flight home was cancelled, it was a whole week before KLM could get them home.
Graham knew as soon as he landed back in Edinburgh that he should make a claim, and that's exactly what he did. He submitted a claim for £1655.47 to cover their accommodation and food expenses for the extra week, but a full six months on KLM are only willing to pay for a mere one day's expense.
So what are passengers like Graham actually entitled to? Our reporter Riz Lateef met James Fremantle, from the Air Transport Users Council, to find out. James told us that the AUC feel that Graham's claim should be honoured by KLM; however, they are not surprised by the airline's response as they have received a number of similar complaints about KLM from other passengers.
Louisa Nelson and her children found themselves stranded in Malaga back in April. They were forced to pay for three additional nights before their airline, Monarch could fly them home resulting in £295 of expenses. She felt Monarch continuously fobbed her off to her insurance company.
James Fremantle is not surprised by Louisa's case and tells us he's seen this many times before. He went on to clarify that:
"The obligation is on the airlines under the EU rules to reimburse passengers for hotel and meals. Many airlines try to refer passengers to their insurance company, but as far as I know most insurance companies won't cover that."
BMIbaby is another airline whose response to the ash cloud continues to attract criticism. At Watchdog, we've been hearing from their disgruntled passengers continuously. What's worse is that some customers have actually saved the airline money.
When Richard Baker became stranded in Malaga, he suffered more stress than most. He's the main carer for his disabled wife and daughter, who were both at home in Leicestershire. Naturally, Richard was extremely concerned about the welfare of his family and because he didn't know how long he would be stranded for, he decided to take the initiative and sort out his own way home.
Those transport arrangements home were complicated and expensive. He can't claim for those, but Richard feels he should be refunded for his accommodation and food. After several months, BMI Baby offered to pay just £150 towards these expenses as 'a gesture of goodwill'. The real cost was nearly £400.
Richard was disappointed with such a small offer. After all, if he had continued to wait for the next available flight in Spain, the cost could have run into the thousands and he would have been putting in a much larger claim.
With the letter of the law, James says Richard doesn't have a right to get a reimbursement for his hotel costs because he accepted a refund of his ticket. Having said that, he thinks this is an example where airlines should show some flexibility.
So how do the airlines get away with it? James believes the regulation is very vague, it simply states that airlines need to pay for reasonable assistance to passengers.
Not all airlines have behaved like this, some have met their obligations as the EU clearly set out, but others have clearly let customers down. If you're one of those passengers, what should you do?
James says the AUC's advice is to keep trying and he welcomes people to get in touch with them as they may be able to help.
KLM response:
First and foremost: KLM did its utmost at the time of the air space closure to take passengers to their destinations as soon as possible.
KLM was the first airline to carry out test flights and we did everything within our power to convince the authorities that flying in (parts of) the European sky was possible. In our view, the closure of the airspace by the EU authorities was excessive.
With regard to the case of Mr. Johnston, we regret that we are not able to comment on individual cases however we will look into the case again.
KLM handles every case on an individual basis taking into account the particular circumstances. We do not avoid our responsibilities and reimburse reasonable costs.
The EU Commission and the European Council acknowledged the fact that its current Regulation [261] is not suitable for the extreme situation that occurred. Circumstances were totally beyond the control of individual airlines.
EC and Council announced in June that they will change the current Regulation.
We hope that EC will offer a solution for all EU member states. We ask for uniformity in order to have a level playing field for the airlines thereby giving similar expectations to consumers throughout the EU.
Monarch response
Watchdog - Ms Louisa Nelson
The closure of UK airspace in April and May 2010 as a result of the volcanic ash cloud forced the cancellation or suspension of over 500 Monarch flights and resulted in thousands of customers being stranded around the world.
Due to the exceptional circumstance and the numbers of passengers affected during the closure of UK airspace, it was not logistically possible for Monarch to arrange hotel accommodation and provide funds for food and drink to all its passengers whilst they were stranded. Monarch's overriding priority was the repatriation of its passengers as quickly as possible and the airline operated 85 additional flights repatriating 80,000 stranded passengers back to the UK in the fist seven days of UK airspace re-opening. Whilst UK airspace was closed Monarch also laid on two shuttle flights from the Spanish Islands of Majorca and Tenerife to Madrid to connect with coaches back to the UK as well as providing an additional fleet of coaches from mainland Europe.
Monarch appreciates that customers will have incurred additional costs whilst stranded and quickly introduced a process to ensure the prompt consideration of claims for the reimbursement of reasonable sums incurred in respect of basic overnight accommodation and sustenance.
Customers were advised that if they had booked their holiday through a tour operator, the provision of hotel accommodation would, in most cases, be arranged by their tour operator. Other customers were advised to contact their travel insurance provider in the first instance to establish the level of their insurance policy cover. If a customer's travel insurance did not cover them for the additional costs incurred as a result of the flight cancellations, Monarch would then consider claims for reasonable welfare. Monarch requested that a copy of the travel insurer's response be sent to them to ensure no duplication of payments for delay or cancellation was made.
Legal advice has been sought to ensure Monarch fulfils its obligations and a benchmark for claims has been applied. Requests for reasonable welfare are now being settled with customers.
Miss Louisa Nelson experienced a delay to the settlement of her claim as a copy of her travel insurer's response was not received by Monarch. However, this has now been received and Miss Nelson's claim has been settled.
bmibaby response:
bmibaby has made reasonable contributions to expenses incurred as a result of the ash cloud situation.
During the ash cloud situation it was our priority to get our customers home as soon as possible and when the air space re-opened on 21 April 2010 we offered a number of rescue flights from and to the UK.
A bmibaby flight may have shown full due to customers using our online check in facility, yet many customers made alternative travel arrangements home and therefore did not use their return flight booking. Therefore these seats would become available. As a result a large number of our customers were able to go on a standby list to get home sooner than originally booked.
We frequently updated our website to provide up to date news to our customers, and regular updates were available via our twitter channel @bmibaby_com (as per the example below), plus an extra call centre was set up to manage the unprecedented volume of calls.
Does every cloud have a silver lining?