Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

Sandy_Beech wrote: »

This is what Thomas Cook have sent me. (This is after the previous fob off letter)!



Sandy Beech, That is similar to my reply from them, except for the part where they talk about reviewing your entire case etc. What reply did youu send them prior to this email?

TC are blatantly ignoring what the ECJ have clarified. They appear to be claiming that regular servicing is all they need to do, and that breakdowns/failures of serviceable parts within the aircraft thus count as extraordinary circumstances.
The ECJ recently made two rulings, and the pertaining parts are:

---

Sturgeon judgment held that:

Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation or delay of a flight is not covered by the concept of "extraordinary circumstances" within the meaning of that provision, unless that problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control.

---

Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia held that:

Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004... must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation of a flight is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision, unless that problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control.

The fact that an air carrier has complied with the minimum rules on maintenance of an aircraft cannot in itself suffice to establish that that carrier has taken ‘all reasonable measures’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 and, therefore, to relieve that carrier of its obligation to pay compensation provided for by Articles 5(1)(c) and 7(1) of that regulation.

---

So, replacing, lets say a broken oxygen mask in the cockpit (which happened to me in 2005 resulting in a 4 hr delay to Tenerife), *is* part of the 'control of the airline'.
It's not something that they have to wait for Air Traffic Control to give the go-ahead on.
Yet if the runway is shut due to snow/ice, then *yes* they DO have to wait for Air Traffic Control to open the runway up, and it's NOT something that is within the airlines control.

Hope this clarifies it for people, in my layman's way of understanding it

Sandy_Beech wrote: »

This is what Thomas Cook have sent me.

Aircraft can experience technical problems that are totally unforeseen, despite all reasonable attempts to ensure they are maintained to a good standard, in line with CAA regulations. These situations can be compared to the maintenance of your own car, which can break down at any time without prior warning, regardless of it's service history, and would be considered completely beyond the owners control.

Yes, but NOT an extraordinary circumstance.

So where ever possible, peeps should put flight number, airline and dates as a heading? That could be useful.