MSE News: Flight delay compensation floodgates open

Marmotta_2

Finnair have just emailed me this:

"Thank you for contacting us. I am sorry that you faced some problems responsing to us. However we have received your previous messages.

Court of Justice of the European Union has on 23 October 2012 confirmed its previous ruling that passengers whose flights have been delayed for a long time may be compensated. Where passengers reach their final destination three hours or more after the scheduled arrival time, they may claim fixed compensation from the airline, unless the delay is caused by extraordinary circumstances. Such circumstances are for instance strikes, weather, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and air traffic management decisions.

Finnair ensures passengers' safe flight with all possible foreseeable measures that could reasonably be required. However, there are defects that are beyond our actual control since they cannot be foreseen due to their nature or origin.

When this kind of unpredictable technical defect occurs despite all taken measures, our opinion is that the definition of extraordinary circumstances is met. We have to take all reasonable measures to repair it as soon as possible and minimize the inconvenience caused to the passengers.

Such cases we do not pay monetary compensations. We still offer you a 600 e-gift voucher as goodwill. The voucher is not personal, so you can also give it to another. Voucher is valid for one year from the date of issue.

Best regards

Finnair Plc
Customer Relations"

Obviously, the whole thing hinges on how to define extraordinary circumstances, but any suggestions on what to do next? I'd be perfectly happy to take a voucher (for what I considered at the time a minor inconvenience) if I had planned to travel anywhere further afield than France or Italy in the foreseeable future, but I don't really want to plan a holiday around one of Finnair's long-haul destinations even if the cost would be considerably reduced.

blondmark

goodwithmoney101 wrote: »

I have what is probably an extremely silly question, so please accept my apologies in advance if it is.

I am already pursuing KLM through the courts for a denied boarding claim, hence this is essentially a moot point, however I wonder if I could have chosen the 'section 75' route and pursued my credit card provider in order to avoid the hassle of a court case?

Definitely, however it doesn't necessarily follow that a s.75 claim against the credit card issuer shall result in a settlement. They may choose to accept service of proceedings and defend, the same as any airline.

However the law gives you the option of suing the airline or the credit card issuer (min £100 invoice value) and your rights against either are identical.

Mark2spark

Marmotta.
An explanation of tech issues not being extraordinary is in the FAQ's.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4421185

Foreman

I put a claim into Monarch for a flight after a 9 hour delay from Heraklion to Gatwick back in November, today they replied ( see below). At the time they said it was due to a tech. fault with the pane. They now describe it as a safety issue and class it as an 'extraordinary circumstances' and advise it is not covered. It seems they could describe any problem as a safety issue to get out of a claim!


Our record show that the original aircraft scheduled to operate your flight suffered a fault with the air cycle machine in the wing, for safety reasons engineers declared the aircraft unserviceable until the fault could be fixed. As a result and in order to reduce the length of your delay and minimise the disruption to passengers, passengers on your flight were transferred to the first available aircraft from within our fleet, unfortunately these events led to a delay in the scheduled departure time of your flight.
Having considered the factual background of this case, we are satisfied that the disruption was caused by an extraordinary circumstance that could not have reasonably been prevented by Monarch Airlines. We are, therefore, unable to accept your claim for compensation for the reasons given.

111KAB

Foreman - could you please place on Monarch thread ~ thanks.

daveadamson

Dear all,

Has anyone received a response similar to this. Do I have a leg to stand on?

Our Ref EU/93667

20/02/2013

Dear ***,

Re: MON2693 Mombasa to London Gatwick on 9th November 2010

Further to your claim for delay compensation, we are writing to advise the outcome of our investigation into your case.

Monarch Airlines aims as its first priority to provide its passengers with a safe and efficient service. We would like to reassure you that every reasonable effort is made to ensure that our flights depart on time and in the unlikely event we are unable to do so through disruption, we aim to provide a solution at the earliest opportunity.

As previously advised, in some circumstances passengers may be entitled to compensation for delay arising from such disruption under European Union laws. However, any monetary payments are subject to certain criteria being satisfied. Under these laws where the disruption is caused by an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ which the airline was reasonably unable to prevent, the carrier is not obliged to pay compensation. Extraordinary circumstances have been defined by the courts and the European Regulations themselves provide a non-exhaustive list of which circumstances can indeed be categorised as extraordinary.

Our records show that the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight suffered damage to the fuselage during the previous inbound flight. As a result, the aircraft was declared unserviceable and unsafe to fly whilst engineers worked to rectify the fault. In order to minimise the disruption to passengers, an alternative aircraft was despatched to operate the outbound flight from London Gatwick and your subsequent inbound flight. Due to the operating limits of the replacement aircraft, it was necessary to operate via Luxor in order to re-fuel both on the outbound flight, and then your flight. Despite Monarch’s best efforts, these events led to a delay in the scheduled arrival time of your flight.

Having considered the factual background of this case, we are satisfied that the disruption was caused by an extraordinary circumstance that could not have reasonably been prevented by Monarch Airlines. We are, therefore, unable to accept your claim for compensation for the reasons given.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can provide any further assistance or information.


Yours sincerely,

Monarch Airlines


Any advice greatly appreciated


Regards,


Dave

111KAB

Daveadamson > place on Monarch thread.

Mrs_Gardener

Can anyone recommend a safe website to get the stats for a chartered flight's times please? My flights were with Thompson and show as chartered so not covered by flightstats.com (although this is not clear until you have already registered with them and then searched for a flight). Thanks.

Rob888

I've made a claim against TUI for a flight delayed overnight in December 2009. Their reply has this comment:
"The European Court of Justice has confirmed that, as the Regulation doesn't say how long passengers have to bring their claims, we need to look at national law. The Supreme Court in the UK has said that all claims to do with "international carriage by air" need to be brought within two years. We, therefore, can't consider claims for flights that were delayed more than two years ago."

Earlier posts seem to suggest small claims can be considered up to 6 years after the event.

Can anyone advise or comment?

Caz3121

Rob888 wrote: »

I've made a claim against TUI for a flight delayed overnight in December 2009. Their reply has this comment:
"The European Court of Justice has confirmed that, as the Regulation doesn't say how long passengers have to bring their claims, we need to look at national law. The Supreme Court in the UK has said that all claims to do with "international carriage by air" need to be brought within two years. We, therefore, can't consider claims for flights that were delayed more than two years ago."

Earlier posts seem to suggest small claims can be considered up to 6 years after the event.

Can anyone advise or comment?

Plenty of discussion on this...take your pick
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4384699
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4489367
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4489629

it is also worth reading the FAQs fully