After a substation fire led to the closure of the UK’s busiest airport on Friday, a group of airlines have not ruled out legal action against Heathrow. Nigel Wicking, CEO of Heathrow Airline Operators’ Committee spoke to Sky News saying he hopes the issue will be:

“Amicably settled at some point in time […] If we don’t get good enough recourse and repayment in terms of the costs, then yes, there might be a case for legal action. I would hope not. But in some of these situations that’s the only course once you’ve gone through everything else”

The fire caused a temporary power outage which resulted in nearly 1,400 flights being disrupted, costing airlines tens of millions.

Criticising the current system, where disruption costs fall to the airlines, International Air Transport Association’s (IATA) Director General released a statement saying:

“Today’s closing of Heathrow will inconvenience a huge number of travellers. We thank those affected for their patience as airlines focus on getting them to their destination as quickly and efficiently as possible.

This is yet another case of Heathrow letting down both travellers and airlines. And that begs some serious questions. Firstly, how is it that critical infrastructure- of national and global importance – is totally dependent on a single power source without an alternative. If that is the case – as it seems – then it is a clear planning failure by the airport. And, from that arises the question of who bears the costs of taking care of disrupted travellers. We must find a fairer allocation of passenger care costs than airlines alone picking up the tab when infrastructure fails. Until that happens, Heathrow has very little incentive to improve.”

Friday’s events highlight concerns about industry resilience during irregular operations (IROPs) and reinforce frustration over the current system where the financial burden from disruption sits primarily with airlines.

 

For more like this see: