Malaysian Airlines delay into London - can I claim compensation?

dzug1

richardw wrote: »

So the expensive bit for the air carrier in this context isn't bonkers.

Well the most bonkers bit to me is that it seems (if I read the regs right which I freely admit I may not be) that if your flight is cancelled or overbooked and you are given an alternative flight that doesnt actually delay you at all you are still entitled to compensation

And the amounts are just ridiculous. I'm pretty sure they'd be unenforceable under English law if they weren't statutory.

bagand96

As to delays, the passenger can only claim compensation if they are delayed by 3 hours or more in reaching their final destination according to the (currently challenged) Sturgeon ECJ ruling: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...7J0402:EN:HTML

This is the bonkers bit. Let's say Thomson take a 757 to Lanzarote and it has a technical problem whilst on the ground there. There are no spare Thomson aircraft or engineers in Lanzarote; they are both back in the UK; at least 4 hours away.

Instantly Thomson then owe each passenger hundreds of Euros. They can't even claim extraordinary circumstances because the EU have decided a broken aircraft doesn't count. Even though Thomson's maintenance procedures are as per the aircraft manufacturer; and regulated and approved by the UK CAA (part of EASA).

This is crazy. The legislation makes no allowance for real life; and in some cases is totally weighted against the airlines. I wish the ones that are challenging the delay clause all the best!

Shona99

bagand96 wrote: »

This is the bonkers bit. Let's say Thomson take a 757 to Lanzarote and it has a technical problem whilst on the ground there. There are no spare Thomson aircraft or engineers in Lanzarote; they are both back in the UK; at least 4 hours away.

Instantly Thomson then owe each passenger hundreds of Euros. They can't even claim extraordinary circumstances because the EU have decided a broken aircraft doesn't count. Even though Thomson's maintenance procedures are as per the aircraft manufacturer; and regulated and approved by the UK CAA (part of EASA).

This is crazy. The legislation makes no allowance for real life; and in some cases is totally weighted against the airlines. I wish the ones that are challenging the delay clause all the best!

Cant certified aircraft engineers operate in that hostile windy environment that is Lanzarote or is that another crazy notion unrelated to real life?

richardw

ACE and TCI have plenty Boeing 757 visiting on a daily basis, I'm sure there is an engineer nearer than the UK.

bagand96

And the passengers? What of them? Are they not worthy of consideration in this? Do you not think that they have homes/jobs/meetings/appointments/schools/offspring and other work/domestic affairs that need to be tended to and be put out to varying degrees by being delayed in their eventual arrival? What of those who are penalised by their employer for not being back at work due to a delay?

Of course people have responsibilities at home. But continuing my example of UK-Arrecife, a delay of 3 hours means a family of four are due €1600. If someone can prove to me that a small delay that can be measured in a few hours means a loss of €1600 then fair enough. I am talking about the delay clause here, not the cancellation As for people with jobs etc... if you are cutting it so fine that you step off a plane and have a shift starting an hour or two later then more fool you. An airlines responsibility ends at the destination airport.

Cant certified aircraft engineers operate in that hostile windy environment that is Lanzarote or is that another crazy notion unrelated to real life?

ACE and TCI have plenty Boeing 757 visiting on a daily basis, I'm sure there is an engineer nearer than the UK.

There will be engineers at Arrecife of course. They won't work for Thomson though. Thomson can (and do) arrange for 3rd parties to work on their aircraft, but this won't happen instantly.

This is before you take into account availability of parts (Thomson's parts store will be in Luton). Again may be available in the Canary islands, but they would have to be sourced from a 3rd party which won't be instanstaneous either.

Furthermore the engineers at Lanzarote will only be line engineers and what they can and can't do to an aircraft is limited.

I could go on all day about the issues of a tech aircraft down route. But its probably not worth it. People (and in my opinion parts of the legislation) take a far too simplistic view of air travel as an operation. I still think €400 compensation for a flight delayed by 3 hours is outrageous.

dzug1

Cityboy wrote: »

If you are re-routed and don't actually suffer a delay in reaching your final destination, then the passenger is not entitled to any compensation for cancellation or delay..

Article 7.2???


..

Clearly the amounts are not ridiculous as they are fixed compensation not punitive damages as might be the case in other forms of law. This point inter alia was argued by the airlines in the IATA case and was found lacking in substance ..

Well they look like punitive damages to me as a layman but if that's been tested and found not so then fair enough

dmg24

Cityboy wrote: »

"...unenforceable under English law if they weren't statutory"
I think you may want to revisit this statement as it appears to be an oxymoron.

That makes complete sense to me - you have to remember that the UK did not decide on the amounts, they were imposed on us by our dear European friends. If an individual tried to impose such a term into a contract it is likely that it would be deemed an unfair term as it is punitive and does not reflect the costs incurred. Indeed, if this was a piece of UK legislation, I would have expected the airlines to have taken it to JR by now.

dzug1

Cityboy wrote: »

Art 7 is dependent on Art 5 and Art 5 states as I have quoted above that compensation is only payable according to the timescales laid down in 5(c).

Art 7.2 restricts that compensation to 50% of the full sum if timely re-routing results in only relatively short delays following a cancellation.

Which is ridiculous. You still get compensation for a half hour - or even no - delay - if your flight is cancelled and you are rerouted.

dmg24

Cityboy wrote: »

As a full EU Member State, the UK participates in all levels of EU decision-making through the Council of Ministers, European Commission and European Parliament and abides by any and all Regulations passed by the European Institutions. We as a nation may not always like being a Member but no laws are imposed on us in the way you describe.

If you believe that you are either deluded or French!

richardw

bagand96 wrote: »

There will be engineers at Arrecife of course. They won't work for Thomson though. Thomson can (and do) arrange for 3rd parties to work on their aircraft, but this won't happen instantly.

This is before you take into account availability of parts (Thomson's parts store will be in Luton). Again may be available in the Canary islands, but they would have to be sourced from a 3rd party which won't be instanstaneous either.

Furthermore the engineers at Lanzarote will only be line engineers and what they can and can't do to an aircraft is limited.

Thomson is part of TUI and TUI have many aircraft so there may be agreements and contracts with TUI throughout europe to fix TUI aircraft irrespective of whether it is a Thomson or other TUI brand such as Arkefly.