Compensation for flight delay

Jaws_2

Steve_xx wrote:

I disagree with you. The problem described is an 'act of god' if it is as described and that as such, no compensation will be due. However, as you say, if you write to the airline (though in this case the op should take the matter up with Opodo) they may be prepared to offer compensation if a threat of court action is imminent. But on the other hand, they may not.

Sorry Steve_xx, please explain how a lack of spare parts can be described as an act of god? Also the EU regulations cover airlines, not their agents, so the claim should be made against the airline.

If MrsBee has a reasonable claim would we not want to encourage her to make that claim?

Steve_xx

Lack of spare parts is not in itself an act of god. But the fact that the aircraft suddenly required a replacement part is. It's the test of reasonableness that applies here, ie is it reasonable for planes to carry a full compliment of spare parts?

The EU regulations may well cover airlines and not their agents. However, the op's contract was with an agent, not an airline, and therefore redress is to the agent, who may well in turn seek redress from the airline.

Jaws_2

An act of god describes an event which is outside human control. If a plane requires a spare part, it is required because of a failure of another part due to wear & tear or misuse. Both of these are under the control of the airline in their maintenance and operational procedures, and are therefore not covered by 'extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken' or acts of god.

Since MrsBee's situation is almost identical to the one which I experienced, and since I won my claim, I'm going to wait and see how she gets on.

Steve_xx

No, I cannot accept your argument. An aircraft requiring a replacement part has suffered an 'act of god'. It is impossible for routine maintenance to prevent every possible permutation of electro-mechanical derangement possible on an aircraft.

RichyRich

MrsBee wrote:

(note just one room although they are not married, engaged and are aged 17 and 18)

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

WiseInvestor_2

I see no record here of exactly what caused the flight delay. Did the aircraft originally return to Chicago with a technical fault (the same fault requiring parts from London?) or could they have experienced a medical emergency (for example)?

What was the fault requiring parts in Manchester? Perhaps the aircraft suffered a lightening strike resulting in a punctured skin? Would that be classed as an 'Act of God'?

The OP also doesn't mention the final destination. Could it be that a stopover (hence the 17 hour delay) was only involved to get a cheaper price than a direct ticket? In which case an element of disruption should be factored into the booking.

At the end of the day, all passengers got to their destinations safely and were given accomodation to wait out the delay. It doesn't appear as though any parties were left significantly disadvantaged or out of pocket. Is it still reasonable to expect the airline to cough up compensation? Such a short-termist approach will result in significantly poorer deals for travellers in future if airlines are forced to cover their insurance costs on top of their toughest market conditions in history.

Jaws_2

WiseInvestor wrote:

Is it still reasonable to expect the airline to cough up compensation? Such a short-termist approach will result in significantly poorer deals for travellers in future if airlines are forced to cover their insurance costs on top of their toughest market conditions in history.

The EU have clearly decided that it is reasonable as they have included such provisions in the regulations.

MrsBee_3

The original delay was due to a technical problem - apparently a fuel leak which had been detected on the plane's original departure from Chicago - hence the need to return to Chicago 1 hour into the flight. The problem arose again when it arrived in Manchester and then a part was ordered from London.

The final destination was Tampa and unfortunately there are no direct flights from Manchester to Tampa hence the need for an indirect flight.

The passengers were given very little information - were not informed of their rights - free phone calls faxes etc so they were worried about contacting us (we were due to meet them in Tampa having flown in on a different airline) and weren't told that they had the right to a refund if they so desired. When they arrived in Chicago they were given 1 meal voucher each so they had to decide whether to use it for dinner or breakfast. And of course they missed the first day of their holiday. We had to return to the airport the following day to pick them up which was a round trip of 110 miles which is another out of pocket expense.

gingerjasper

I had exactly the same problem on a flight to Iceland in February, technical problems delayed it for 7 hours as they had to get parts. Kept getting delayed by extra hours and eventually they cancelled it and sent us to a hotel for the night (we were offered separate rooms, even though we are a couple). We flew on the same flight the day after.

I wrote to Icelandair but was told there was no compensation payable for technical faults as they are unforeseeable. We also complained about lack of information and refreshments, phone calls etc. but got nothing apart from an apology letter. The only compensation we got was £40 each (£20 for each 12 hours) from our travel insurance.

So, unfortunately, I would say, you are not entitled to anything from the airline, just the travel insurance company.

WiseInvestor_2

Jaws wrote:

The EU have clearly decided that it is reasonable as they have included such provisions in the regulations.

Along with the deliberately unspecific get-out clauses. To have made the regulations all-encompassing would've stifled cheap air travel and changed the marketplace forever; somewhat ironic that the consumer would be the greatest loser.