Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

Cacawheel wrote: »

Hi I'm new to this and hoping someone can help me before I go to the trouble of emailing the airline. We got married in Cyprus in 2006 and on our return home we were dragged to and from the airport 3/4 times over the 39 3/4 hours. We were put up on and off in the Hilton with meals provided that we're often difficult to access die to the times we were told to be back for the coach to go to the airport again. Anyway as we were due home Sunday morning but didn't get back until Tuesday morning I wrote to complain. We were sent a cheque for £20 each which I was loathed to cash as I felt it an insult. Would we still be able to seek compensation???
Thanks in advance

No, you're out of time.

grr8dane wrote: »

I see that a from October 2012 a claim for compensation can be made as far back as 2005 if you had a delay. In April 2006 we had a delay of 5 hours and 10 minutes within the EU with Excel Airway's who went into administration in 2008. Does this mean the chance of claiming has ceased or would there be an alternative professional body in which to submit a claim. Any thoughts or suggestions?

You can claim from the airline back as far as 2005, but you cannot issue a court claim back further than 6 years if (when) the airline says no.
And in your case, the airline is bust, so you have no-one to claim against.

As the post at 4218, just 13 posts previous to yours, informs you. :eek:

thalia22 wrote: »

Hi Fat-Tony, see my posts #4512 on page 208 with details of what the exchange rate should be. It should be calculated at the time of the actual delay using the historic fx exchange rate available from the internet for the equivelant of 600 Euros. Hope this helps.

Thanks for the reply.

If the airlines are using historic exchange rates, shouldn't we be entitled to claim interest back from the year of delay (2007) as they refused to compensate me originally? Seems a bit unfair to me?

I take it you can't ask for the cheque in Euros?

I have to say that some of the experts on this forum have the patience of Saints. I dont mean to sound harsh, but if people can't be bothered to read a few pages of the forum to find answers to frequently asked questions (and people have even taken the trouble to create special FAQ posts!), they're not going to fare well against an obdurate airline company.

My family of five took a flight with Monarch from Sharm to Gatwick earlier this year (ZB249, 8 April). In the event, the flight was delayed by just over 24 hours due to "a technical problem with the operating aircraft". I heard from others at the time that this was a crack in the cockpit windscreen.

I wrote in May requesting compensation, and got the (then standard) letter saying that the legal interpretation was being challenged I the ECJ. So I wrote again at the end of October, and then again with the copious forms and attachments (a laborios process deliberately designed to deter applicants, I suspect). I had an acknowledgement from a David Bulut confirming receipt of these forms and Informing me that "once this has been assessed, a response will be with you in 6-8 weeks". I wrote in my letter covering the forms that, since technical problems have been determined by the ECJ as unlikely to provide a valid defence of "extraordinary circumstances", I would like to know the details of the incident if Monarch were intending to claim this exemption. Of course I have yet to have a substantive response, and I'm not holding my breath. I will write a formal LBA in mid-January if nothing further is received, and will let you know how I get on.

In the meantime, two quick questions:

a) I don't think it is reasonable for Monarch to justify a 24 hour delay due to the discovery of a windscreen crack (assuming this is what caused the incident) but I'd be interested in people's views;

b) Monarch seem to be refusing to pay out any of these claims, but the discrepancy with others' practices - such as BA and EasyJet - must make their position untenable, when these claims finally come before the Courts. Even if each circumstance is slightly different, does an element of precedent not coming into play a bit? Or to put it another way, does the fact that other carriers are playing fair on this not work against Monarch, and other naughty airlines, in the Courts?

I agree with others that Monarch are being shameful, and they deserve a public pillorying!

I have just discovered this thread and would appreciate any views on the following:

On 9 November 2011 my wife and I flew on flight BA 207, scheduled to depart from London Heathrow at 0940 to Miami. In the event the flight was delayed by almost 7 hours, which caused us considerable inconvenience, stress and expense.

The circumstances were as follows:

The flight boarded in time for the 0940 departure. The pilot then indicated an instrument problem had been detected and engineer was coming to deal with it. After some time he announced that the problem could not be resolved and a replacement aircraft was to be used. Passengers were then disembarked and the flight rescheduled. It was then discovered that the crew had insufficient flying time remaining to make the trip and a new crew had to be found. Departure was rescheduled again. Eventually, the flight left around 7 hours late.

I do not think these were "exceptional circumstances" but the fault of BA for the following reasons:

- the initial problem should have been detected, reported and acted upon by the previous crew when the aircraft was inbound
- the first crew should have involved an engineer earlier or requested a replacement aircraft sooner before loading and embarking passengers
- operational staff should have been aware that the first crew would run out of available flying time much sooner and taken appropriate action.