Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Thomas Cook ONLY

jackndaz

Vauban wrote: »

You don't really have much of a choice, Jack: either initiate court proceedings, or walk away. You can't wait to know the reason, since you will be timed out. But ask yourself this: which is more likely - that the airline have been playing fair, trying to establish the facts as quickly as possible, and will voluntarily pay up if the delay isn't genuinely extraordinary; or that the airline have thrown every obstacle in your path and know that, by not telling you the reason for the delay, you may choose not to proceed - until it is too late. Even if you believe the first scenario, the balance of argument suggests initiating the court process and forcing them to provide a defence (plus you'd only have to pay the initial MCOL cost - not the full hearing fee at this stage).

I would be more inclined to believe the latter.... I will be initiating court proceedings as I truly believe this is yet another delay tactic.

dunnett76

dunnett76 wrote: »

I was delayed for about 9 hours in airport then overnight in hotel for a total of 18 hours on a flight zante to Glasgow.

We are a family of 5 which includes 2 toddlers of 2 and 3 yrs old and our holiday ended in an absolute nightmare.

We were initially on the plane about to take off and then the pilots said there was a problem with the hydraulics.

I emailed Thomas cook and they got back to me within 2 hrs saying they has investigated the delay and it was outwith their control ie extraordinary circumstances.

Does anyone think I should still push for compensation?

anyone had a payout for similar scenario?

maghater

In court a week on Monday, and as yet have not received Thomas Cooks documents on which they intend to rely. Supposed to have them within fourteen days of court date, what a shoddy outfit.

JPears

Suggest you ring court, ask if they have them. If not ensure they make a note of this, if they do, ask for a copy but enure court make a note that you have not!

daz1onlym

Had contact from flight mole today, looks like our fight is over Here is our email from flight mole;

Hello xxxxxxx,

I have now received a letter dated 20th June 2013 as received today by me in relation to the the two flight delays to which you handed to ALC for review and advancement by ALC.

This letter is attached for your information. Thomas Cook maintain their position to the claims for compensation and have now disclosed further factual information ( although perhaps not a complete factual narrative) of the circumstances surrounding both flights. The tour operator/carrier may not have disclosed this information before and would have needed time to conduct the necessary researches

Thomas Cook maintain that certain discovered technical defects lead to the delays-and that the nature of these defects was extraordinary for the purposes of EC Regulation 261/2004.

I/you have no further supporting investigation regarding the circumstances as might have been performed by a National Enforcement Body.

I have made a decision not to advance these claims further. You should not regard this as reflecting -one way or another-on the (legal or factual) merits of the claims. I make no comment on those merits and you be best advised to obtain qualified and competent legal and technical advice on those merits should you wish to take further action in my view.

You should also therefore regard these claims as now resting unencumbered in your/the passengers hands.

You have the option to place a complaint with the hands of the operable National Enforcement Bodies ( the CAA for the outbound flight) for them to choose to investigate the complaint and whether their mediation efforts might cause the airline to alter their currently held ( but apparently firmly held) view.

Thank you for allowing ALC the opportunity of advancing the claims and regret on this occasion that ALC is not able to assist you or your co-passengers further.



Here is Thomas cooks reasons for EC

The delay for the outbound flight of 12 hours was due to a Reported Exhaust Gas Temperature issue, which upon investigations, revealed a faulty Pt20 sensor.There is no previous history of this fault,or prior indication that this component would fail.

The delay to the inbound flight of 7 hours was due to a Failed O ring,which caused a hydraulic leak.
Hydraulic leaks are not within the normal operating perameters of our aircraft. As an airline, we employ a hose replacement scheme for hydraulic systems, whereby the hoses are inspected for deterioration and replaced on a regular basis to avoid leaks or problems. As i am sure you will appriciate this does not mean that a leak will never occur.

Upon careful considoration, it is our firm view that the circumstances that caused the delays to both flights could not have been foreseen or forestalled and consequently, we regard this matter as extraordinary.

Sarah Rice
Litigation Executive.


:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(

chili2001

chili2001 wrote: »

I hope i've spotted something that might help me. I've just realised that I have been trying to claim on my flight TCX1745 for the delay which they are claiming EC for a high stage bleed valve but it was the plane from Gatwick (the same plane we were waiting for) that was delayed getting to us TCX1744 with a Scheduled Departure: 1:55 PM - Fri Sep-21-2012 and Actual Departure: 6:20 PM - Fri Sep-21-2012.
Can I claim a knock on effect as it might have been the same plane but it wasn't delayed at Antalya where we were waiting but at Gatwick? I hope this makes sense!

Anybody want to comment?

JPears

daz1onlym wrote: »

Had contact from flight mole today, .......which caused a hydraulic leak.
Hydraulic leaks are not within the normal operating perameters of our aircraft. As an airline, we employ a hose replacement scheme for hydraulic systems, whereby the hoses are inspected for deterioration and replaced on a regular basis to avoid leaks or problems. As i am sure you will appriciate this does not mean that a leak will never occur.

Upon careful considoration, it is our firm view that the circumstances that caused the delays to both flights could not have been foreseen or forestalled and consequently, we regard this matter as extraordinary.

Sarah Rice
Litigation Executive.


:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(

It would seem they are adopting the same tactic is Jet2 ie EVERY delay is caused by an EC.
Remember it is incumbent on the airline to prove an EC, not for you to disprove it.
"Hydraulic leaks are not within the normal operating perameters of our aircraft" I should b****y hope not! That doesn't mean its extraordinary circumstance.

southy1

After being a numpty a
nd posting on wrong thread please can you help a thicko I've read the pre procedure rules on MCOL Regarding letters,I've sent TC 2 template for claim and NBA and had two emails in reply denying my claim citing EC both times since I've sent letters and they have sent emails what do I do now.

romanby1

southy1 wrote: »

After being a numpty a
nd posting on wrong thread please can you help a thicko I've read the pre procedure rules on MCOL Regarding letters,I've sent TC 2 template for claim and NBA and had two emails in reply denying my claim citing EC both times since I've sent letters and they have sent emails what do I do now.

Court if you think the y are not genuine ECs.. Read the Sticky posts at the top of this forum.

southy1

Sorry what I wanted to ask is are emails considered as letters