SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Icelandic Airline Wow Air Collapses and Cancels all Flights:
Iceland's low cost carrier Wow Air has canceled all flights and told passengers to book with other airlines.
Its website has a travel alert that begins: "Wow Air has ceased operation. All Wow Air flights have been canceled."
The alert said people who wanted to travel should now look for "so-called rescue fares" which may now be offered by rival airlines.
Wow added that those who made bookings by credit card or via a European travel agent should try to get their money back through those businesses. It said some passengers may be entitled to compensation from the airline itself.
[...] The company's model was to entice passengers with ultra-low prices before slapping on extra charges for seat selection, baggage, leg room and expensive refreshments. A typical base fare for a Wow flight from the U.S. to Europe could come in at less than $200.
A fall in tourist visits to Iceland and rising fuel costs had been cited as headwinds to profitability.
The airline had also suffered poor customer reviews and was particularly criticized over recurring delays.
You don't always get what you pay for, but you generally do not get what you do not pay for.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 30 2019, @03:44PM (5 children)
Sounds like just another garbage carrier going under all too deservedly.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Saturday March 30 2019, @04:05PM (4 children)
Sounds like another attempt at competition, which kept people from being completely gouged by the quasi-monopolists for a little while.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 30 2019, @04:20PM (3 children)
I'll split the difference between you and AC: Another business that decided on a shitty business model. I realize that in some countries, you order from the menu, and expect to pay for each item ordered. But, being an American, I expect to pay twelve dollars for a twelve dollar steak, and I expect my choice of potatoes, rice, or pasta, along with a couple of veggies.
If an airline offers me a $200 flight to Timbuktu, I don't expect to be charged for "extras" like someplace to stash my ditty bag. I can reasonably expect to pay extra for bringing enough luggage to fill the bed of a pickup truck, but an overnight bag and a briefcase would seem to be included in the fare.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 30 2019, @04:29PM
You just want people who are only bringing a backpack full of stuff to pay for you to store your luggage. In the US spirit airlines does the same thing. You can fly around for like 1/3 the price as long as you don't choose your seat and bring a bunch of luggage. It is great.
(Score: 5, Touché) by theluggage on Saturday March 30 2019, @05:52PM (1 child)
...and then add on a tax or two that wasn't included in the $12, oh, and don't forget the morally obligatory 18% "service charge" so that the people who cooked and served it can afford to eat food and sleep indoors. I've been to America and it certainly shouldn't be throwing any stones in the "hidden extras" glasshouse.
(Score: 2) by exaeta on Sunday March 31 2019, @12:53AM
Or maybe they could advertise the real price, 18% higher, on the menu!
Hidden fees are a scummy practice. When they are implied aspects of the service, they are even worse.
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 2) by legont on Saturday March 30 2019, @04:10PM
It is hard if not impossible to make money by purely transatlantic business; at least not in economy segment. Given the Concord story, it's probably true for expensive one as well. Even the perfect hub Iceland is (by rules, flights have to include home hub to enjoy free routes) is not enough to make an airline profitable. One need other markets. Iceland once again becomes fly over country with ridiculous prices.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Saturday March 30 2019, @05:36PM (2 children)
My friends almost bought the Wow Air direct flight from DTW to REK, but even with the low base fare the horror stories of the quality of Wow air dissuaded them. We are really lucky everyone opted for Iceland Air which is still operating, and perhaps even more lucky that we already purchased tickets. No competition likely will result in some price increase.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by RS3 on Saturday March 30 2019, @07:57PM (1 child)
I'm glad you avoided Wow Air. However...
> ...perhaps even more lucky that we already purchased tickets.
From Wow Air website, it seems people may not get any refund. Check that link in the story. No flight, no refund: you lose. What a mess.
It seems that it should be criminal to take someone's money for something, know you're running out of money, and keep their money but not give them a product or service. Wow Air _must_ know their accounting ledger, and if they're headed for being "in the red", they should let people know, offer refunds or provide the good or service, and shut down gracefully. If you or I did this to someone, we'd be guilty of larceny.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 30 2019, @10:45PM
Take-the-money-and-run is what Iceland did back during 2008 financial crisis, too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 30 2019, @05:46PM (3 children)
no idea why they folded but it must be hard to run a airline business if your home airport is in a country with not much own oil and not much export economy to pay for fuel.
i think i remember that airplanes take off with a full tank but must land with a "empty" one ... so even if the destination has oil,
say amerika with N.Y. city, they cannot fill the plane up there so that they have enough on board to fly to iceland and back to the N.Y. gasoline station.
so unless they can power their airplanes with abundant icelandic geothermal power, someone has to bring the "fly energy" to iceland first?
maybe they can detour to dubai or sumething ... oh! wait...
(Score: 2, Interesting) by pTamok on Saturday March 30 2019, @06:22PM (2 children)
Passenger carrying aircraft in commercial service do not have to land with a 'empty' tanks.
1) They have to have sufficient reserve at landing to allow for (I think) 15 minutes extra flight. A pretty much final emergency reserve. Landing with less than this is regarded as a serious incident.
2) They have to fly with sufficient reserve fuel to allow for diversion in case of emergency, either if the aircraft has a problem, or if the destination airport has a problem.
3) They have to allow sufficient reserve fuel to allow for being put in a holding pattern while waiting to land at a busy airport. I don't think there is a fixed duration for this, as the chances of having to fly a long holding pattern will depend on the destination. If you find yourself running out of fuel, you can declare a 'fuel emergency' and get priority, but this is frowned upon. Some airlines are notorious for flying close to the limits and relying on this. It is not regarded as good practice.
4) They are allowed to carry extra fuel so that they do not need to refuel at a destination airport. It is known as 'tankering', and so long as the aircraft does not exceed the maximum allowed landing weight* for its configuration, you can carry what you like. It is often used when providing service to airports that have either very expensive fuel, or poor infrastructure. It can also be done for economic reasons, but most jet fuel is untaxed everywhere, and carrying it around is not zero cost. There are quite complex calculations that depend on relative fuel prices and fuel burn rate for different weights of the aircraft, so iPad apps exist to help pilots determine how much fuel to carry, or not. Commercial airlines will have very fine tuned policies on this.
Maximum Landing Weights are interesting - most aircraft can land safely at significant weights over the MLW - but they need to be inspected for damage afterwards. There isn't a specific weight above which the airframe collapses into a pile of components on touchdown - so if the priority is to land immediately (e.g. fire on board), you don't spend time flying around jettisoning fuel (if you can) or simply burning fuel off (if your fuel jettisoning system doesn't exist or isn't working), you land sharpish, and let engineering sort out the mess (replacing landing gear components, replacing deformed skin panels, unbending structural components).
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 31 2019, @02:05AM (1 child)
FAA rules are fuel to get to your destination, then to divert to another qualified destination, and then 45 minutes on top of that. That's to take off, not to land; if you land with less than your 45 minutes of reserve it's not a problem, it's what the reserve is for. Individual airlines have their own operating rules, though, and might require pilots to report (internally, not to the FAA) landing with less than 45 minutes of fuel on board.
There is not any particular distinction between holding pattern reserve fuel and whatever other reserve fuel. Aircraft spend less time in holding patterns than they used to due to improved navigation and ATC technology and more direct flights rather than hub-and-spoke, and ATC will prioritize aircraft for landing that are at risk of running out of fuel. Generally, the reserve fuel is needed in case you waste time deciding to divert (pilots might choose to make multiple landing attempts before diverting), in case your fuel consumption is higher than expected (either because of incorrect fuel management, poor engine performance, routing changes, or unfavorable winds), or whatever other unexpected reason might cause you to use extra fuel.
It's common to carry more fuel than the bare minimum. Generally, it depends on how expensive fuel is at the destination relative to how expensive it is to carry it with you from the origin. Some places fuel is just more expensive, but it also depends on the specific deals airlines make for fuel. Even pilots of small single-engine planes can save money buying fuel in bulk at their home airport, airlines save much more.
It's the pilot's choice how much fuel to take (within the operating limits of the aircraft, of course) however airlines generally pressure pilots to carry less fuel, not more, especially when flying from an expensive location to a cheaper one. Having, once or twice, gotten below the 45 minute reserve limit, it's really not a comfortable feeling. It seems like half an hour should be plenty of time to find a place to land, but it's not always. Among small aircraft, running out of fuel is the #1 cause of in-flight power loss. The pilot's fuel management, in general, is far less reliable than the engines are. Even airliners have run out of fuel (search for "Gimli Glider"), in that case as a result of a pilot-training failure that is somewhat reminiscent of the current problems with the 737.
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Sunday March 31 2019, @08:38AM
Thanks for the clarification and description of FAA practice.
For those interested here are a couple of articles: one on ICAO practice from Aviation stackExchange:
Aviation StackExchange: What are the ICAO fuel reserve requirements? [stackexchange.com]
and one from Skybrary:
Skybrary: Fuel - Regulations [skybrary.aero]
The latter references EASA SIB 2018-08 [skybrary.aero] which details and clarifies the specific phraseology that should be used when a pilot informs Air Traffic Control of a lack of fuel:
MINIMUM FUEL - you will land with less than the final reserve
MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY FUEL - the pilot believes that the lack of fuel is an emergency situation.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday March 30 2019, @06:12PM (8 children)
A business venture failed. It happens. It's unfortunate for the people in the venture, but it happens.
The real issue here for the rest of us is that people showed up at the gate with pre-paid tickets in hand, some of them for a flight home, and no airplane showed up. No offer of a refund appeared. They didn't even send a representative around to put a poster on the wall letting people know there would be no flight.
Then they suggest getting others to refund the ticket price, apparently with no intention or ability to pay those others either. But in the meanwhile, their suggestion for people stranded far away from home? Go begging and spend money you don't necessarily have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 30 2019, @11:44PM (7 children)
Who the fuck cares what they say. Dispute the WOW charge on your credit card, then buy a return ticket home with your card. Maybe with a carrier that is not likely to die before they take you home.
Before anyone laments that they have nothing to their name anymore, what the fuck are you doing flying intercontinentally in such a precarious position that one carrier failing you puts you in dire straits?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday March 31 2019, @03:22AM (6 children)
Disputing the charge is an excellent idea, but it won't necessarily credit your card right away. But the point is, the airline SHOULD have the money to do the refund since it didn't expend resources for the already paid for flight. If it doesn't, either the customer or their credit card will get stiffed. Same for the travel agencies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 31 2019, @03:48AM (5 children)
Not really, if they declare bankruptcy, an administrator gets to decide when and how to dispose of any funds. And a consumer is a bit further down the list in priority. GE Leasing will probably get its due first.
You don't think the credit card companies will settle for getting stiffed. Likely they will have forced Wow to buy a bond to insure any chargebacks go through.
Maybe them, but do travel agencies still exist? In any case, I don't think they ever booked flights on discount carriers, at least not here.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday March 31 2019, @05:54AM (4 children)
Since WOW suggested getting a refund from the travel agent, it seems likely there are some who did booj flights on Wow. Of course, they were talking about European travel agents, so there may be none in the U.S.
But they didn't just wake up one fine morning thinking everything is fine, read a report with the bad news, poof the paper work into existence and suddenly declare bankruptcy. At some point, they were accepting payment for flights they knew there was no way in hell they were going to be able to fulfill. They could have at least completed the return flights.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 31 2019, @03:49PM (3 children)
Well, for every person on a return flight, there will be passengers outbound, so there isn't an option of "dropping off passengers at home". The lessors of the planes would be pissed that their equipment is getting used without pay, and the bankruptcy administrators would not permit it anyway. Doing it before the filing would not be a fiducially responsible action.
Bankruptcy fraud is a serious crime, in addition to possible civil liability for the leadership. The process to declare bankruptcy to not run afoul of these risks is a well-trod area of law. They had probably seen that the signs were not good, and set out a condition after which continuing to run the business would be criminal and expose them to liability. That condition happened, they filed for bankruptcy and the rest will be for the administrators to figure out.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday March 31 2019, @05:33PM (2 children)
Meanwhile, those little nobodies who had the nerve to actually support the airline by buying tickets can just go fuck themselves like the worthless sacks of shit they are, AMIRIGHT?!?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 01 2019, @01:06AM (1 child)
No, they can get in line. In the US, the priority is given in 11 USC 507. Let's look at this for a non-personal bankruptcy: From the top, the assets that Wow leased are going back to the lessors. No reason they should not make money with their property. For distribution of company assets, first in line will be the bankruptcy administration itself. They wouldn't work for free. Then it is employees and suppliers for moneys owed to them (capped at $10k). I hope you will see that it is equitable that regular workers have high priority. Then the retirement benefits of the employees. Now it's the turn of people who paid for services received.
This is how it goes in the adult world. Our capitalist society has set up a balance of creditor protections vs the ability of businessmen to take a risk. The debtor's business may fail, and creditors may get pennies on the dollar. However, fraud commited by the debtor is punishable. Arguably, this freedom to do business by soliciting other people's capital is the base of the wealth and progress of first world countries.
Adverse events happening is a risk we all face, and you fail to deal with them at your own peril. You could blow out a tire on the road, and you had better maintained your spare. You could pick a flight and go "ooh, only $200 to Thailand", but if the company fails, you have to do the needful to get yourself back home again. Could have picked the $800 flight, but you are never free of risk.
Anyway, the process is simple if you paid by credit card, so it's not even worth getting excited about.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Monday April 01 2019, @02:20AM
Much older rule, don't leave people stranded. I'm not talking about bankruptcy law, I'm talking about common decency. They can't have NOT known they were going bankrupt when they took people's money and flew them a thousand miles from home with the (empty) promise of a return flight. The people who were stranded accepted their offer in good faith even though the offer was made in bad faith.
They could have made alternate arrangements to get their passengers home BEFORE they signed the bankruptcy papers. They could at least have refunded the tickets, then signed the papers.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Farkus888 on Saturday March 30 2019, @09:08PM (1 child)
I had a trip booked with them. They did not even email me, I found out here. I called and their phone is already shut off. So I guess credit card dispute it is. If this hadn't been posted here I might have found out at the airport.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday April 01 2019, @05:07PM
Remember folks, you heard it first from
Charlie!SoylentNews!Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 30 2019, @09:56PM
The Wallstreet khazar jews disagree. They get free money. No strings attached. Their private bank "the federal reserve bank" creates money out of thin air and hands it out to other khazar jews like candy.