Ryanair and British Airways have finished at the bottom of Which?’s annual survey of short-haul airlines, with both companies panned for providing poor customer service to those with disrupted flights during the pandemic.
The consumer champion surveyed more than 1,300 passengers for their experiences of flying with short-haul airlines in areas such as boarding, cabin cleanliness, customer service and value for money since November 2019.
In a second part of the survey, Which? asked more than 1,100 passengers whose flights were disrupted how satisfied they were with how their airline handled the issue. The actions of some airlines – delaying or denying refunds for flights cancelled, or which passengers could not take, due to Covid – were reflected in these results.
Budget carrier Ryanair received an overall customer score of 55 per cent and a lamentable 47 per cent in the refund satisfaction category, with one in five customers telling Which? it took them more than a month to get a refund.
One customer said: “Ryanair is the most awkward airline to deal with that I have ever come across. It seems to be proud of being difficult.”
Themes that have appeared time and again – making Ryanair a fixture in the bottom three of Which?’s airline survey for more than a decade – were also evident, with another passenger adding: “Total lack of transparency about costs, and treating passengers like cattle to be squeezed for the last penny.”
When asked, ‘Is there an airline you would never fly with?’, three-quarters (74%) named Ryanair. Ryanair scored no better than two stars for all the measures in the main customer satisfaction survey – apart from value for money, where it scored three stars.
BA was second from bottom with a customer score of 63 per cent – just behind TUI Airways, but with a much lower refund satisfaction score.
Passengers reported spending hours on hold only to be hung up on, or passed endlessly between different departments. This disappointing customer service, along with two-star ratings for food and drink, seat comfort and value for money, led one passenger to describe BA as ‘a budget style airline at premium prices’.
However, BA’s cabins ranked as joint cleanest alongside KLM and Jet2.
Jet2 was top of the table and earned a Which? Recommended Provider endorsement.
Its record on delivering refunds was the best: more than eight in 10 (84%) respondents were satisfied with the outcome when their flight was disrupted because of Covid, and throughout the pandemic, most passengers have received a resolution in two weeks.
Nine in 10 Jet2 customers told Which? they got a full refund, rather than having a voucher foisted upon them.
Its Covid flexibility policy is one of the best, allowing customers to make fee-free changes for most pandemic-related disruption, including lockdowns, quarantines and changing FCDO advice.
One Which? survey respondent said: “The pandemic has seen Jet2 shine. Its standard of customer care exceeds that of any other low-cost airline.”
Rory Boland, Editor of Which? Travel, said:“Ryanair’s consistently terrible customer service has made it a fixture among the worst performers in our surveys for many years – but the airline plumbed new depths with its handling of Covid refunds.
“BA’s reputation also deservedly took a battering when it took a hard line on refunds for passengers who could not travel because they followed government health guidance.
“Many passengers will not forget how they were treated by companies during the pandemic. Covid could still cause disruption to international travel, so we would advise travellers to book with operators that have flexible booking policies and a record of treating their customers fairly.”
British Airways and EasyJet are going against EU guidance and refusing to refund unused vouchers for flights cancelled during the pandemic, Which? can reveal.
Some passengers willingly accepted vouchers in place of cash refunds when their flights were cancelled because of coronavirus, believing they were helping the airlines. But others claim they weren’t told they were entitled to cash refunds, or that they were misled into accepting vouchers they didn’t want.
The European Commission issued guidance in May recommending that airlines automatically refund any unused vouchers 14 days after they expire. However, this is only guidance, not a legal requirement.
While Ryanair says its vouchers can be refunded at any time, BA and Easyjet insist that once issued, their vouchers can not be exchanged for cash. That means passengers could be left hundreds of pounds out of pocket if they do not use them by the time they expire.
When flights are cancelled by an EU airline or by an airline flying from an EU airport, passengers are entitled to a cash refund under EU Regulation 261 within seven days of the cancellation. But after the pandemic grounded most flights leaving the UK earlier this year, all of the UK’s biggest airlines failed to meet this legal requirement, and many passengers were given vouchers instead.
At the height of the pandemic earlier in the year, many customers with cancelled flights struggled to contact airlines to ask for their money back. BA customers in particular complained after the airline removed its online refund form from its website and directed people to its overwhelmed customer service line, which played an automated message before hanging up on the passenger.
Some BA passengers have also complained to Which? that they automatically received vouchers for cancelled flights when they thought they’d applied for refunds through the website’s ‘Manage my booking’ page.
Jackie Harbridge says when she called BA to request a refund a recorded message directed her to Manage My Booking on BA’s website, but when she clicked on the refund button, she says she received a voucher for £2,118 for the flights to San Francisco.
She tried to call BA immediately, but struggled to get through. When she eventually got to speak to an agent she was told that since she had requested vouchers the decision could not be reversed.
“I was completely misguided by the instruction in BA’s Manage My Booking, which specifically quoted ‘Refund’ but turned out to be for a voucher, which is completely useless to us,” said Jackie. She and her 83-year-old husband no longer plan to travel so they can’t make use of the vouchers.
BA denies its claims process is misleading, saying that it has issued more than 2.1 million cash refunds. It said it is clear that customers must call to request cash refunds, and insists that they only get a voucher if they fill out a form that clearly states they are requesting a voucher.
While Easyjet passengers can request a refund online when their flight is cancelled, some willingly accepted vouchers to help support the airline.
But some passengers now may not be able to use their vouchers because the airline has cut back on some routes in recent months, and Easyjet has said it will only refund vouchers in “exceptional circumstances as a gesture of goodwill”.
An Easyjet spokesperson said: “For passengers who have chosen a voucher as compensation for their cancelled flight, we would only reverse this and offer a refund in exceptional circumstances as a gesture of goodwill if the customer’s circumstances justify it (eg. A school group no longer able to re-travel).”
A number of Easyjet’s flight routes have yet to restart, and a number of routes passengers were initially booked on have been dropped since vouchers were issued, after the airline pulled out of Southend Airport and dropped a number of routes from Newcastle and Stansted airports. Easyjet’s vouchers are only valid for a year, meaning many passengers may be left with vouchers they cannot use.
BA has dropped 60 per cent of its flights up to the end of this year and also pulled out of the Isle of Man. However, it has extended the validity of its vouchers so they can be used any time up to April 2022.
Additionally, BA and Easyjet both say vouchers are transferable, so passengers can pass them on to family and friends if they are unable to use them.
On top of ignoring guidance on refunds for unused vouchers, BA and EasyJet have also said that they will not be offering refunds for flights that operate as scheduled, meaning many passengers will only have the option of rebooking their flight to a later date if they cannot fly due to England’s latest lockdown. Ryanair has also said it will not offer refunds for flights that are not cancelled while passengers are in lockdown.
Which? believes the Civil Aviation Authority should be doing a better job of making it clear to airlines that they should be following legal guidance on vouchers and refunds, but without powers to issue fines or take swift action, it has struggled to get a grip as airlines have played fast and loose with the rules during the pandemic.
To help restore trust in the travel industry, the government must urgently review the CAA’s powers as part of its aviation recovery plan, to ensure passengers have an aviation regulator with the powers it needs to stand up for their rights.
Rory Boland, Editor of Which? Travel, said:“As we head into a winter that is bound to bring more flight cancellations, it’s extremely concerning to see the UK’s biggest airlines disregarding European guidance and letting their passengers down when it comes to their refund rights.
“BA and Easyjet must immediately make it clear that passengers will not face losing their money if they are unable to use a voucher, while all airlines should be offering cash refunds to passengers prevented from travelling by lockdown laws.
“Major airlines have acted shamefully and without fear of consequences during this pandemic – the government must urgently review the CAA’s powers as part of its aviation recovery plan to ensure passengers have a regulator that can effectively stand up for them.”
Some passengers have successfully secured refunds for vouchers they claim they didn’t ask for by going through their airline’s ADR scheme.
The CAA recommends anyone who had a voucher forced upon them, or whose airline is refusing to refund them should do the same – BA uses CEDR, while EasyJet uses CDRL.
Passengers whose airline isn’t a member of an ADR scheme should seek redress through the CAA’s Passenger Advice and Complaints team.
Kim Norris received a cash refund of £1,099 after taking her case of an unwanted voucher to BA’s alternative dispute resolution service, CEDR. It said that, on the balance of probabilities, she had not agreed to accept a voucher.
BA said that Kim applied for a voucher via its website, but it only provided CEDR a screenshot of the type of form it says she filled out, not her specific form. BA acknowledged that Kim had asked twice for a refund, by phone and by email. CEDR found that when BA issued the voucher, it was unlikely that Kim had voluntarily consented to accept it.
In its ruling, CEDR also pointed to a recommendation from the European Commission that if vouchers haven’t been redeemed by the end of their validity period they should be automatically reimbursed within 14 days.
A British Airways spokesperson said: “We do not auto-issue vouchers, they can only be issued when a customer has requested them by filling out the form. Our website is clear that when filling out the form it is to apply for vouchers.
“Customers are always entitled to a cash refund if their flight has been cancelled, and must call us to do this, which is clearly displayed on our website. Customers have up to a year after their flight was due to operate to get in touch with us for a cash refund – and we have processed over 2.1 million cash refunds to date.
“If a customer uses a voucher to make a new booking which is then subsequently cancelled by us, they would be entitled to choose either a cash refund (if the original booking was paid for in cash), or a voucher in a similar way as before.”
British Airways’ treatment of staff ‘a national disgrace’, say MPs
UK-based airlines and other aviation employers should not proceed hastily with large scale redundancies and restructuring to employees’ terms and conditions until the Job Retention Scheme ends in October 2020 and they have had the opportunity to consider the Government’s plans to help the sector restart and recover, say MPs.
In a report exploring the gravity of the crisis facing the UK’s aviation sector, the Transport Committee says fundamental decisions about people’s livelihoods should not be made prematurely.
Several aviation companies have announced redundancies, despite accessing the Government’s Job Retention Scheme designed to help businesses severely affected by the pandemic to retain employees and protect the economy.
The actions of British Airways and parent company, International Airlines Group, draw particular criticism. The committee’s view is that BA’s current consultation on staffing changes is a calculated attempt to take advantage of the pandemic to cut 12,000 jobs and to downgrade the terms and conditions of approximately 35,000 employees. The consultation is due to end on June 15th.
Chair of the Transport Committee, Huw Merriman MP, said: “The impact of coronavirus may sadly mean that the loss of some jobs in the aviation sector is justified. The behaviour of British Airways and its parent company, IAG, is not.
“It falls well below the standards expected from any employer, especially in light of the scale of taxpayer subsidy, at this time of national crisis. It is unacceptable that a company would seek to drive this level of change under the cover of a pandemic.
“We looked closely at BA’s plans to consult on at least 12000 redundancies and change the terms and conditions of the bulk of its employees. Many submitted written evidence to our inquiry and we thank them.
“As a committee, we have sought to examine this further and drive change using the means open to us through the House, asking Urgent Questions, seeking debates, introducing legislation and putting questions directly to the Prime Minister.
“We will continue to bring pressure where we can, including the airport slot allocation process. This wanton destruction of a loyal work force cannot appear to go without sanction – by Government, parliamentarians or paying passengers who may choose differently in future. We view it is as a national disgrace.”
The introduction of a 14 day blanket quarantine for travellers to the UK from other countries will damage the recovery of the sector and the wider economy, says the report.
Should the conditions allow in late June, the Committee calls for the quarantine policy to be abandoned when it is next reviewed and urges Government to introduce a more flexible and risk-based approach to border control, using alternatives such as targeted quarantines, ‘air bridges’ and temperature screening. In defending its decision, the Government should clearly set out the evidence it used to reach its decision.
Thousands of passengers who booked holidays and flights are still waiting on refunds from airlines and travel operators in accordance with their legal obligations, causing them additional stress and hardship.
The Government should consider whether protections for passengers can be built into the planned Airline Insolvency Bill.
MPs also recommend that the Department for Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority, responsible for enforcing current rules, conduct a speedy review of its powers to ensure it can enforce the rights of passengers in an effective and timely way.
Acknowledging the extraordinary pressures on providers, the Committee asks the Department for Transport to clarify why an extension to the legal deadlines for issuing refunds was not implemented in the UK.
Four months into the crisis, today’s report says the Government’s strategy should be more developed.
The Government’s Aviation Restart, Recovery and Engagement Unit is a welcome first step but the Government should bring forward a strategy for the aviation sector as soon as possible. To stimulate demand and protect businesses, the Committee recommended a temporary six month suspension of Air Passenger Duty payments and 12 month business rates relief for airlines and airports across the UK, as is currently the case in Scotland.
Chair of the Committee, Huw Merriman MP, added: “Few industries have been affected more by the coronavirus pandemic than aviation. Thousands of planes, and thousands of passengers, have been grounded, resulting in a 97% reduction in passenger flights compared to the previous year.
“This vital sector of the UK economy could lose more than £20 billion in revenue. Government must press on with a collaborative strategy for recovery.
“It is imperative that the UK Government finds a way to get aviation back on its feet. We don’t believe this fits with a blanket 14 day quarantine period for travellers to the UK.
“In today’s report, we recommend a more agile response. We also outline our support for a temporary suspension of Air Passenger Duty payments and support with business rates.
“Passenger confidence in airlines and travel operators, dented by unnecessarily difficult refund processes, must be rebuilt. We recommend the Government considers whether new protections for passengers should be introduced ahead of future pandemics or other extraordinary circumstances.”
The Committee’s inquiry is part of a wider look at the impact of coronavirus on UK transport. This first look at aviation did not examine the longer-term implications for air travel and MPs intend to return to this once the immediate crisis has subsided.
Rory Boland, Editor of Which? Travel, said: “The travel industry’s handling of cancellations and refunds has left consumers out of pocket and trust in the sector at a record low – so the committee is right to call for the government to introduce measures to improve protections for travellers.
“Which? has been calling for airlines and holiday firms to comply with the law on customer refunds and for clarity around Refund Credit Notes since the sector was thrown into chaos earlier this year, so action is long overdue.
“The government must urgently set out how it will take these recommendations forward, to restore trust in the industry before it is permanently damaged and ensure customers receive the billions of pounds they are collectively owed in refunds.”
