Getting that 600 Euros......

mark3333

Hi everyone

I had a flight to Cebu cancelled and 24 hour delay when flying out with Cathay Pacific earlier this year. We were put up in the 5* hotel at T5 Heathrow and fed. Not where I wanted to be but would have accepted this if my bags hadn't then not arrived leaving me with another 24 hour wait before the holiday got started.
The bags are a seperate issue as I was offered money to cover a small amount of expense regarding this.
As to claiming the 600 Euro compensation I was firstly offered an upgrade on a future flight. When I pressed for the money I was fobbed off with a load of legal guff that basically said that they didn't feel it was right to pay out. I have read on other threads on here that the compensation ruling has been challenged and is therefore 'on hold' until 2012.
Does this mean then that the advice on here (can't put the link on but under Flight Delays) is out of date? I contacted the aviation authority but they just point you back to their website which says that the airline are liable.

Any advice much appreciated!

richardw

Was your flight cancelled or delayed?

mark3333

Yes good question. We went out on the same flight the next day so I think that must mean it was cancelled.

richardw

..............deleted

mark3333

Hi sorry for delay

Flight Number 250 28 Feb 2010 Heathrow to Cebu (via Hong Kong)

Thanks

mark3333

I am trying to find the letter from them. Will copy out the details shortly.

Thanks

mark3333

main bit is

"As you are aware, in its ruling of 19 November 2009 in the cases C –402/07 Sturgeon v Condor and C –432/07 Bock & Lepuschitz v Air France, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that passengers whose flights are delayed may rely on the right to compensation laid down by Article 7 of the Regulation where they suffer a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours due to a flight delay.

We have sought expert legal advice and consider that the CJEU’s ruling is incorrect as it contradicts the clear wording of the Regulation which provides that no compensation is payable in such circumstances. Additionally, the decision conflicts with a previous ruling of the Grand Chamber of the CJEU concerning the Regulation. The ruling is also not binding legal authority which must be followed by the courts of EU member states."

foloowed by apologies etc

bwayeast

I (plus my wife & 2 children) was delayed by 5 hours on Monarch flight ZB 661 from Malaga to Manchester on Sunday August 29th

There was a "carefully vague" letter waiting for us at check in from Monarch stating that the delay was due to reasons including "operational changes" and the pilot stated in his apologetic pre-flight chat that a problem with an aircraft had necessitated some shuffling and that our flight had unfortunately suffered the most. In combination these point to our delay being due to Monarch running a fleet with no spare capacity. These do not sound to be “extraordinary circumstances”

Monarch provided only a 6 euro voucher per passenger. No telephone calls were offered (as I understand they should have been) for passengers to make calls home & rearrange pick ups etc. In practice we have only incurred a small amount of financial loss - food and drink mainly plus entertaining the kids. As it was a Bank Holiday the next day no work was missed etc. However I feel very aggrieved that the relaxation accrued on our holiday was abruptly halted by having to spend a long and uncomfortable night in an airport, followed by being on the plane in the early hours & having to sleep this off for most of our bank holiday. If there was a safety issue with our plane - fair enough - but this seems to have been due to what I suspect was at best Monarch playing a percentages game - not providing enough resources and hoping that most people wont claim compensation when it goes wrong. At worst I think this may have been a delay they knew about in advance as they shuffle aircraft around - in which case I was sold something that was never going to materialise.

I have read up on the forums and got hold of EC Regulation 261/2004 etc. I'm not absolutely clear on whether we have the same rights to the 400 euro compensation per person as those whose flights have been cancelled. I'm sufficiently annoyed about the principal of this to want to take Monarch to the small claims court - but dont want to waste my time & money if our case doesnt qualify. Can anyone advise?

Unfortunately whilst my home insurance covers legal advice - not for this!

Thanks in advance

dzug1

The original regulations specifically did not provide for compensation in these circumstances.

However a subsequent court case ruled that they ought to have done so - and in fact said it should be paid sooner (for longer journeys) than in the event of a cancellation. You would qualify under this case.

That court ruling is on hold (in the UK) as the result of an appeal - so if you do go to court the case will be stayed pending that appeal. Any result wont be quick

bwayeast

Thanks dzug1

Do you have details of the court case you mention? I intend to write to Monarch first before starting proceedings

cheers

regfixit

I am in a similar position to bwayeast in that I had a flight delay with Monarch that I was planning to claim compensation for under the Sturgeon ruling. I have written the letter to them and had their response that they are not paying anything out due to the CO/6569/2010 case. I was wondering whether to go ahead and issue a claim now, or to wait until the challenge to Sturgeon is decided.

On the one hand it seems sensible to wait because if the result is Sturgeon is overturned then it would have been a waste of the £60 fee to file the claim and there will still be time to place a claim after the ruling is made (assuming it does not take six years to happen).

On the other, I am wondering if the result of the challenge might be an alteration to Strugeon that only takes effect as of the ruling date.

Any thoughts about the best way to play this dilemma as I guess same question is faced by bwayeast.