Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
Page 26
    • xxdiddiexx
    • By xxdiddiexx 23rd Mar 17, 7:12 PM
    • 314 Posts
    • 88 Thanks
    xxdiddiexx
    Having a quick scan of Vaubans Guide, the Eglītis case seems to be not too dissimilar to this one.

    The appellants in the main proceedings submit that the reason for the cancellation of the flight was not the closure of Swedish air space but rather the expiry of the permitted working hours for the crew of that flight. They do not dispute that the closure of Swedish air space, following failures in the power supply, qualifies as ‘extraordinary circumstances’ beyond the airline’s control. In their opinion, that event explains only the initial flight delay, namely between 20.35 and 22.45. The decision to cancel the flight was made at 22.45 because the permitted working hours of the crew were insufficient to complete the flight in its entirety.

    The Eglitis Judgement Point 15
    • Tyzap
    • By Tyzap 23rd Mar 17, 9:23 PM
    • 722 Posts
    • 390 Thanks
    Tyzap
    Thanks for those details.

    Did you check with the online flight delay calculators? It is helpful to know if they would be willing to take on your case.

    If you were sat on the plane during the delay did you notice if it was a propeller aircraft or a jet?

    Jets need a much longer runway to take off than a prop aircraft, and as they state that there was some kind of restriction on the runway length, following the repair, this may be of relevance. However, you state that you friends BA flight did take off to LHR, all be it late, and this would more than likely have been an Airbus jet aircraft. So why would that aircraft have been able to take off but not yours! A bit contradictory.
    Further, London City Airport only has a short runway and is restricted to certain types of smaller aircraft. Contradictory again.

    The runway was only closed for 1.35 hours. That's not a long time and Flybe could have still operated the flight within the 3 hour compensation window. The question is why they didn't. The reason cannot only be because of the hole in the runway. This is a question that they may not be too willing to answer until the disclosure stage of litigation.

    If other airlines were able to operate normally after the runway was repaired, why did Flybe not? Whatever the answer to this is, it cannot be an EC.

    It's an interesting one.

    Good luck.
    Last edited by Tyzap; 23-03-2017 at 10:53 PM. Reason: Typo
    Please read Vaubans superb guide.
    • xxdiddiexx
    • By xxdiddiexx 23rd Mar 17, 10:03 PM
    • 314 Posts
    • 88 Thanks
    xxdiddiexx
    It's a propeller plane. I fly quite regularly between LCY and Aberdeen. The flights rarely leave on time and this cancellation and their attitude was the straw that broke the camels back.



    I will try one of the online companies. Thabkbyoubfor your replies it has been a great help getting someone else's opinion.
    • xxdiddiexx
    • By xxdiddiexx 23rd Mar 17, 10:55 PM
    • 314 Posts
    • 88 Thanks
    xxdiddiexx
    According to Bott & Co I could be entitled to compensation, so I have submitted a claim. Will keep you posted!
    • JPears
    • By JPears 20th Apr 17, 2:22 PM
    • 2,735 Posts
    • 768 Thanks
    JPears
    bumped back up
    If you're new. read The FAQ and Vauban's Guide

    The alleged Ringleader.........
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

149Posts Today

1,664Users online

Martin's Twitter