Out come of high court ruling?

callum9999

mumbles87 wrote: »

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.

Ranting isn't a crime no. Nor is me criticising your ranting... I've said many times now that I would claim and have no issue with you claiming - my issue is with this absolutely ridiculous law. Whether you need to work the next day or not is irrelevant. Getting €400 in compensation because your £10 flight (not saying yours was, but it's a plausible scenario) left 4 hours late is absurd, and I don't see how you can't see that.

Consumer friendly yes (which is why I would never lobby for the law to be changed!) but from a neutral viewpoint, absurd.

mumbles87

callum9999 wrote: »

Ranting isn't a crime no. Nor is me criticising your ranting... I've said many times now that I would claim and have no issue with you claiming - my issue is with this absolutely ridiculous law. Whether you need to work the next day or not is irrelevant. Getting €400 in compensation because your £10 flight (not saying yours was, but it's a plausible scenario) left 4 hours late is absurd, and I don't see how you can't see that.

Consumer friendly yes (which is why I would never lobby for the law to be changed!) but from a neutral viewpoint, absurd.

I completely agree.

I think all you should get is price of refreshments (say £20 for a meal) then the price of the flight refunded and any fines for extra parking at airport or anything like that...

shaun_from_Africa

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

blindman wrote: »

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

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

I've been an aircraft engineer for over 30 years so have plenty of experience in aviation maintenance, and I will also agree that the statement was absolute tosh.

The amount of preventative maintenance carried out on aircraft would be hard for a non aviation person to believe, but despite this, all modern aircraft are extremely complex and it's totally impossibly to prevent faults occuring.

It's just like saying that a correctly serviced car should never break down. I wish this was the case, but sadly it isn't.

EnglishGladiator

So.... basically if I flew to Peru, and my changeover being in Miami, I wouldn't be able to claim compensation for my delayed parts of the flight from miami to lima, and vice versa, as despite my ticket being BA, one flight was AA, and the other was a BA flight operated by AA (and obviously didn't land in or leave an EU airport)? I had one flight cancelled (10 hour delay), and the other was almost 4 hours delayed.... I had got my hopes up... but in vain???