Many passengers are familiar with this situation: a delay is announced on the display board. OK, 20 minutes isn't much, but will it stay that way? Or will the cash register ring because it adds up to more than three hours when you arrive? And what actually counts as an arrival? Is it the landing or the moment when you can get off? A comment.

Some airlines try to set themselves apart from the low-cost competition by overemphasizing that they are premium carriers. Many people now know that there is very little difference between Ryanair, Easyjet and the like on short and medium-haul routes. In the event of delays or even cancellations, do you really have an advantage if you have booked with Austrian Airlines, British Airways and the like? The simple answer: yes and no. It depends a lot on which airport the irregularity occurs, who is responsible for ground handling and who is responsible for this particular flight. It is not uncommon for ground service providers and airlines to blame each other when the implementation of passenger rights according to EU regulations is inadequate or, in extreme cases, not carried out at all. If everything goes wrong and no one feels responsible, it doesn't really matter where you booked.

Unfortunately, there are also flights where "there's something wrong from the start". For example, friends of mine recently traveled with British Airways from Vienna to London Heathrow. The trouble started with the online check-in, because it simply didn't work. Whenever I tried it numerous times, I was always given an error message, which simply said that I should go to the counter at the airport. The hotline couldn't make sense of it either, because the simple answer was that it must work because the booking was approved for web check-in. It still didn't work, but that's fine.

Of course it is annoying when you are only travelling with hand luggage and then have to stand in a queue and the process at the three counters, one of which is reserved for business class and status passengers, is subjectively very slow and sluggish. However, in this specific case it would be fair to British Airways, but it must be mentioned that the two passengers in question were each travelling with one suitcase, so they would have had to go to the counter anyway.

Up to this point it is more of a "luxury problem" because previously there was no internet or mobile check-in at all, so everyone always had to go to the counter first. Even though you got to the airport on time, time is running out and the plan to go to a lounge or have a coffee is discarded as a precaution because the agent said that the plane was on time and that you should go to the gate quickly because he had heard that the security check and then the border control by the police were currently very busy.

Promised queue did not materialise

There were only a few people waiting at both the security checkpoint and passport control, so it went very quickly. Just as quickly, a glance at a screen showed that the Heathrow flight was about 20 minutes late. So there was still time for a cup of coffee. Boarding then started more or less on time with the already known 20 minute delay.

All passengers are seated, the flight attendants have taken care of the safety instructions and all cabin checks, so the flight should be taking off soon. But nothing is happening. It feels like 45 minutes later, an announcement is heard from the cockpit. Due to bad weather at Heathrow and a lack of staff at air traffic control on the way to the UK, the flight cannot take off for at least two hours. A murmur can be heard in the cabin. Many passengers do not seem to be aware that British Airways is neither responsible for the weather nor has any influence on how air traffic control draws up its duty rosters. Shit happens.

In contrast to a subcontractor of KM Malta Airlines, who "given" me a similar experience on a flight to Brussels just a few weeks ago, the passengers on the Vienna-Heathrow flight were very quickly given water and small snacks by the BA crew. Travelers on a budget airline recently found out in Palma de Mallorca that this is not a given, in the truest sense of the word, because the cabin was extremely hot due to a defect in the air conditioning. According to those affected, water was only given when the situation became downright tumultuous.

Only after two hours did we go to the runway

After waiting for around two hours on the apron in Vienna with a more or less good view of the neighboring gate, we headed towards the gate. The flight on the Airbus A319 was completely unspectacular. After landing at Heathrow, the chaos continued. The plane had to wait 45 minutes in front of the parking position because there was no one from ground handling to guide the plane, put the chocks under and move the gangway up. The captain made no secret of this and explained that due to an acute shortage of staff, no one was available and that we had to wait directly in front of the gate, not at the gate. He also had no information about how long this would take. His tip: "Just stay seated and don't move the aisle."

Of course, many passengers did not heed the advice and waited in close proximity for 45 minutes plus an additional wait, because passengers in the rows in front also want to get off and experience shows that no one cares how long someone in the back rows has been waiting in the aisle. Why should they? An effective deboarding system with just one door would be to get off row by row (from row 1). If there are two sets of stairs up to about the middle, use the front door and everyone behind uses the rear door. Many airlines have already made an effort, but it has never gotten through to the passengers' minds. It's about the same as bus boarding with two doors: even if the boarding pass clearly says "rear entrance", that doesn't mean that a passenger with a seat in the last row won't still use the front door and then laboriously find their way through the cabin. This is one of the reasons why the boarding process is then slowed down.

Now the question mentioned at the beginning arises: has the flight officially arrived or not? After all, the plane has landed and passengers can legally make phone calls, send text messages or WhatsApp messages again. Some airlines have repeatedly argued that they consider the time of landing to be the arrival at the destination. Many passengers assume this, but it is not the case.

Flight times do not include take-off and landing

You have to know that the flight times given do not represent the take-off or landing. They are the planned block times, i.e. the times at which the aircraft leave or arrive at the parking position. The times that can be found on the booking confirmations say absolutely nothing about the times of take-off and landing. Unfortunately, many travelers do not know this and so five minutes before the block time they complain that they are taking off late "again".

Some time ago, the European Court of Justice had to deal with the question of whether landing or block time counts as arrival. The ECJ has determined that arrival is the time at which the first door is opened and the first passenger can disembark. Whether he then does so or prefers to stay on board is irrelevant. However, in contentious cases regarding compensation, it is very advisable to document this moment and exchange contact details with other travelers so that there are witness statements. It is to be expected that if the arrival is delayed by just a little more than three hours, the airline will not want to pay and will resist.

Well, after about an hour, the two passengers were ready to step onto the gangway and made their way through the huge Heathrow Airport to the baggage claim area. But things didn't go quickly there. After an hour, believe it or not, an announcement came that the baggage claim would be delayed for a few minutes due to a lack of staff. What "a few minutes" means from the perspective of British Airways' ground handling: another hour.

Waiting time for luggage does not count towards compensation claims

The two passengers left Heathrow Airport five hours later than expected. At the same time, they were furious with British Airways because they felt the airline had given them very little information about what was going on at any given moment. I was unable to explain to the passengers that at least two hours of the delay were due to the weather and that the captain had acted correctly because safety first. They were no longer open to this, because they immediately countered by saying that they had to wait an hour to disembark and then another two for their luggage to be handed over. British Airways must have known when the plane was arriving and could have ensured that the passengers could disembark and their luggage was unloaded. Actually, that's true, but in practice this obvious process doesn't really work, especially in the summer during peak travel times.

Are passengers entitled to compensation after a journey that they found annoying and stressful? That remains to be seen, but it will be complicated, because the weather problem at Heathrow Airport that caused the delayed departure actually did exist and all airlines were affected. The vast majority of the delays are therefore due to the weather, i.e. extraordinary circumstances. The ECJ has also ruled several times that airlines can cite the weather, and particularly spontaneous storms that were not foreseeable, as extraordinary circumstances. If the staff problems at Heathrow Airport were the sole cause of the delay, then the situation would be much simpler and clearly in the passengers' favor.

However, airlines do not have to count the time spent waiting for luggage to be delivered towards the "stopwatch" for any compensation payments. In theory, you could take a whole day and still not receive any compensation for the "delay" because, as far as the flight is concerned, it is not a delay. The "stopwatch" stops as soon as the first door is open and the first passenger can get off. Airlines are liable for delayed luggage delivery in other ways, but this is more about urgently needed replacement purchases and even with these there are massive restrictions. For example, with clothing that is expected to continue to be used, a maximum of 50 percent can be replaced. So get information first and then go shopping.

Are four euros enough for drinks and snacks at Vienna Airport?

Regardless of how delays and waiting times arise, airlines do themselves no favors when passengers leave the destination airport annoyed. If everything doesn't go smoothly on the return flight, there is a very high probability that a different carrier will be booked on the next trip to London, even if it costs a little more. It's not as if British Airways has a monopoly between Vienna and the British capital. But whether the competition does it better or whether they have already invented an additional fee for always having good weather is another matter.

However, airlines are strongly advised to comply with their care obligations in accordance with passenger rights. After a delay of two hours, passengers have the right to drinks and snacks, as well as short phone calls and/or emails. The problem: At Vienna Airport, the ground handling companies believe that issuing 4-euro vouchers or a direct deduction in the catering area by presenting the boarding pass is enough. This amount is far too low given the high price level at Vienna Airport and has not been increased for many years. Travelers should therefore keep their receipts and then claim them from the airline, because there is no regulation or law anywhere that would stipulate that only four euros per person must be spent. On the contrary: In lawsuits against airlines, in most cases the entire expenses for food and snacks (in accordance with the Passenger Rights Regulation) are awarded and judges often criticize that four euros is far too little given the high prices at the airport and that the airline has therefore not fulfilled its care obligations. Nobody says that vouchers have to be issued. On the contrary: benefits in kind such as the distribution of water bottles and sandwiches, for example, would also be permissible. The regulation does not speak of money, but explicitly of drinks and food...