Out come of high court ruling?

richardw

It's been with us for over 7 years!
Safety standards are very high and prices for knowledgeable money savers are low.

stoneman

Voyager2002 wrote: »

Had the 'plane been properly maintained, it would probably not have developed the fault. And the law makes it clear that if something that genuinely could not have been prevented causes a delay, then no compensation is to be paid.

We all want cheap travel, but not at the cost of carriers saving money on maintenance and other aspects of safety. This legislation will actually put them under pressure to raise standards.

Oh come on, what sort of unfounded statement is that.

stoneman

richardw wrote: »

It's been with us for over 7 years!
Safety standards are very high and prices for knowledgeable money savers are low.

I for one do not think prices are low. Maybe for some people on some routes but I would bet that probably the "majority" of people heading for popular holiday or business destinations would argue otherwise. I am not saying that this is because of 261/2004 but that could be because not many people actually know about it. We are regulars on a money saving forum, we try and find "loopholes" to exploit (well that's the way I look at it). Go over to Flyertalk, there are actually very few people that know anything about this regulation. When the judgement comes out it will be widely publicised, and unlike the ash cloud event I doubt that airlines can insure themselves against most of the things that are covered by it. Saying " I was delayed by 4 hours so they owe me 400 euros" is not gonna help.

mumbles87

the rule was brought in.. so why shouldnt i claim? have you spent 4 hours in an airport? specially one thats very small with nothing there and most things closed.. sitting watching the olympics in spanish .. then getting across the loud speaker please listen to instructions to ensure an on time departure when we were already 15 mins behind the 4 hour delay restart time.

The ruling was obviously brought in for a reason.

they wrote to me today to say no they wouldnt be paying out as the ruling was still pending and that was their final stance.. so i replied simply well the ruling is tomorrow we can await the outcome of it

blindman

1. Had the 'plane been properly maintained, it would probably not have developed the fault.


2. And the law makes it clear that if something that genuinely could not have been prevented causes a delay, then no compensation is to be paid.

As an Ex RAF Engineer I agree with Stoneman that statement 1 is rubbish.

We "over Maintained" the fighters and they still "broke"

Statement 2 in this case is interesting as in the case of a technical fault-(unless the plane has been "carrying" a minor known fault) then a Technical fault is usually "Genuinely not have been preventable"

The Op's (ambulance chasing) attitude is another matter :eek:

LBD

I am trying to claim compensation for a 6.5 hour delay with Monarch in April this year, I have contacted them again this morning pointing out the judgment and awaiting a reply.. but not actually expecting anything.

callum9999

mumbles87 wrote: »

the rule was brought in.. so why shouldnt i claim? have you spent 4 hours in an airport? specially one thats very small with nothing there and most things closed.. sitting watching the olympics in spanish .. then getting across the loud speaker please listen to instructions to ensure an on time departure when we were already 15 mins behind the 4 hour delay restart time.

The ruling was obviously brought in for a reason.

they wrote to me today to say no they wouldnt be paying out as the ruling was still pending and that was their final stance.. so i replied simply well the ruling is tomorrow we can await the outcome of it

4 hours!!!! You poor thing - I'm sure there is no-one on here who could possibly understand the sheer suffering you went through... I've slept overnight in Stansted for around 8 hours on several occasions yet I managed to survive - stop trying to act like it was some kind of trauma...

While I agree with you that if I'm allowed money, I'm going to claim it regardless - being paid €400 for a 4 hour delay is beyond the ridiculous.

mumbles87

callum9999 wrote: »

4 hours!!!! You poor thing - I'm sure there is no-one on here who could possibly understand the sheer suffering you went through... I've slept overnight in Stansted for around 8 hours on several occasions yet I managed to survive - stop trying to act like it was some kind of trauma...

While I agree with you that if I'm allowed money, I'm going to claim it regardless - being paid €400 for a 4 hour delay is beyond the ridiculous.

[text removed by MSE Forum Team]

If im allowed the money as I said and you AGREED i am going to claim it..

its not me that sets 400 euros for the time i was delayed........ its the courts

If im stopped for speeding its £60 fine .. but i cant go HOLD on mr police man.. i only was 5 miles per hour over the limit... cant i get my moneys worth? or pay £30? i mean it was only 35 mph.. it hardly seems a fair amount

end of the day... rule is there.. amount is set

callum9999

mumbles87 wrote: »

no need to be a complete !!!!!! about it .....

If im allowed the money as I said and you AGREED i am going to claim it..

its not me that sets 400 euros for the time i was delayed........ its the courts

If im stopped for speeding its £60 fine .. but i cant go HOLD on mr police man.. i only was 5 miles per hour over the limit... cant i get my moneys worth? or pay £30? i mean it was only 35 mph.. it hardly seems a fair amount

end of the day... rule is there.. amount is set

Yes that's a perfectly valid analogy... As I suspect you know full well, every slight increase in your speed exponentially increases the chance of you killing someone should you hit them. Not quite the same as having to spend 4 hours in a lounge.

I wouldn't be such a [text removed by MSE Forum Team] about it if you didn't act like spending 4 hours in an airport (where you had to watch the Olympics in Spanish no less...) was akin to some sort of torture that left you emotionally scarred and in need of compensation.

And yes I did say you should get the money, if the law says you can get it then grab it as fast as you can. I'm taking issue with the law itself and the way you were ranting.

mumbles87

[text removed by MSE Forum Team]

If you had been there with my friend being in a throughly bad mood the whole time because of it making it very uncomfortable. also i needed to drive her 200 miles back home the next day before 4pm so getting home at 7am after a long flight wasnt ideal start to a day where a 4 hour drive was required.

As I said this wasnt a big airport with lots of places to go. one bar which had litterally 10 seats inside for the passengers of the plane to all try and get.

Nobody likes being delayed and I can see sort of the reasoning of the compo for flights delayed. I mean What if I had been working straight after the flight, I have had that before where I will arrive at 5am after a night flight then go to work for 7. this would of made me late for work. its the same with the trains. If your delayed over 15 mins your entitled for some compo (very little) but still.

The laws are made and I will be claiming. Ranting is not a crime otherwise this entire forum would of been outlawed years ago.