FLIGHT DISRUPTIONS: Volcano ash from Iceland hits UK flight plans

FH_Brit

Pelican_eats_pigeon wrote: »

But this is 'right to care' rather than right to compensation. And there doesn't have to be a 'blame' situation for people to assert their right to care.

And the EC Reg says cancellation is the 'non-operation' of a flight so whether it is 'grounded' or not is of no meaning or relevance. It does not say 'cancellation by the air carrier', it simply says 'cancellation'.

We'll see!

mikey72

Pelican_eats_pigeon wrote: »

That's not relevant, the question was about Expedia. I haven't noticed any airlines trying to delay refunds.

Hugh_Jass wrote: »

Expedia's website has confirmed that airline refunds take a min. 90 days - what a joke!

Are you saying this is unclear.
Or do you believe expedia are not being truthful, and keeping the money?

Pelican_eats_pigeon

mikey72 wrote: »

Or do you believe expedia are not being truthful, and keeping the money?

I'm not going to accuse Expedia of this. They could either be simply confused or they could be hedging against any difficulties that may arise.

FH_Brit

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY (WEEK, MONTH ETC)..........

Many people are quoting "Clearly States" - This is in a perfect world. If EVERYTHING was clear, there would be no legal courts, no lawyers and no claims! The only reason that 'A' takes 'B' to court is because their lawyers read the same "Perfectly clear" or "Clearly states" law, and the 2 different sides read 2 different meanings and it takes a Court to decide what is right.

Just because it is "clear" to you it does not mean it is clear to others. I just think that anyone caught up in this is in for a fight.

In my work, every day, I deal with "clear" policies but it then goes to months or years even, before it is sorted out.

Best to all you stranded people.

Pelican_eats_pigeon

hillsy wrote: »

Our flights have now been - tentatively - confirmed as leaving tomorrow. If I'm honest I'm not as thrilled by this as I might have been. We were only going for a week so this means there's really not a lot of point.

Just ask for the over-5hr-delay refund, right? Here's an interesting wrinkle. Article 2 of regulation 261/2004 states that you need to check in to be covered. Makes sense really, but it also means that the people sitting at home being told not to travel to the airport are in fact not covered by 261/2004. Because they haven't checked in.

How tiresome :mad: Are there any counterexamples to this?

I might add, I think the airlines (ours, at least) are being fairly sneaky about this. They don't cancel flights, just delay-delay-delay and tell you not to come to the airport. Which apparently makes it harder to claim compensation.

Given the European Court of Justice's past refusal to let the airlines wriggle out of responsibilities by delaying flights instead of cancelling them, I don't think they would be very impressed if airlines tried such a ploy.

The ECJ has already clarified with respect to the right to compensation that passengers with long-term-delays must be treated the same as cancelled passengers, so I can't see this ploy getting them anywhere at all - the ECJ isn't going to suddenly contradict itself by making a contrasting ruling on care. It has made it fairly clear that the Regulation is to be interpreted broadly and in the favour of the passenger.

mikey72

FH_Brit wrote: »

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY (WEEK, MONTH ETC)..........

Many people are quoting "Clearly States" - This is in a perfect world. If EVERYTHING was clear, there would be no legal courts, no lawyers and no claims! The only reason that 'A' takes 'B' to court is because their lawyers read the same "Perfectly clear" or "Clearly states" law, and the 2 different sides read 2 different meanings and it takes a Court to decide what is right.

Just because it is "clear" to you it does not mean it is clear to others. I just think that anyone caught up in this is in for a fight.

In my work, every day, I deal with "clear" policies but it then goes to months or years even, before it is sorted out.

Best to all you stranded people.

I guess I'm a cynic as well.
The compensation article was clear when the regulation was introduced.
It was clear again in 2006 when the ECJ re-afirmed it. It was still clear after the 2009 test cases.
It was clear again this year.
Guess what
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8626474.stm
AEA are still clear on the fact they won't accept it.

Pelican_eats_pigeon

FH_Brit wrote: »

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY (WEEK, MONTH ETC)..........

Many people are quoting "Clearly States" - This is in a perfect world. If EVERYTHING was clear, there would be no legal courts, no lawyers and no claims! The only reason that 'A' takes 'B' to court is because their lawyers read the same "Perfectly clear" or "Clearly states" law, and the 2 different sides read 2 different meanings and it takes a Court to decide what is right.

Just because it is "clear" to you it does not mean it is clear to others. I just think that anyone caught up in this is in for a fight.

In my work, every day, I deal with "clear" policies but it then goes to months or years even, before it is sorted out.

Best to all you stranded people.

Since the airlines have already challenged several portions of the Regulation (including right to care) in the highest possible court and been rebuffed (see Cityboy's post on the 'right to care' thread in the flights subforum), there is already guidance as to how the Regulation is to be interpreted.

Pelican_eats_pigeon

mikey72 wrote: »

I guess I'm a cynic as well.
The compensation article was clear when the regulation was introduced.
It was clear again in 2006 when the ECJ re-afirmed it. It was still clear after the 2009 test cases.
It was clear again this year.
Guess what
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8626474.stm
AEA are still clear on the fact they won't accept it.

Whether AEA accept it or not is of no import. If I don't accept speed limits, it doesn't suddenly prevent them from applying to me.

mikey72

Pelican_eats_pigeon wrote: »

Whether AEA accept it or not is of no import. If I don't accept speed limits, it doesn't suddenly prevent them from applying to me.

No, you go to court and argue as to what mitigating circumstances there were, and why you shouldn't be penalised, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, that's why a good lawyer is worth his money.
It's certainly not a fixed fine for all, regardless, no arguement, is it?
(and sometimes the policeman just lets you off with a verbal warning)

mairi28

mikey72 wrote: »

I can indeed,
No self catering, no car hire, just a hotel, and one trip there and back.

.......so what are you saying, that you can't buy a meal from a supermarket? It seems to be more prudent given the circumstances. The article doesn't say anything about how you buy your food & I'm sure the airlines are more likely to reimburse someone who is getting by on pasta from a supermarket rather than steak from a restaurant.