Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Thomas Cook ONLY

sging1

Oliver_Klozoff wrote: »

Hey sging1, what you're referring to isn't case law and can't supercede Wallertin. So carry on.

I will take it back to court after the CAA ruling if it is not favourable but the judge seems to be looking at using the CAA report as his guide.

My technical fault that caused our 25 hour delay, five of which they kept us on the plane for, then another three hours in the terminal, the fault that the pilot not TC confirmed, (TC has still failed to confirm this even up to the first appearance in court and after several requests).

It was:

The primary and secondary hydraulic seals failing on the steering seconds before take off.

What I am trying to put together now is how many hydraulic failure claims have they had, as if its loads and I feel it is by reading through this forum that hydraulic failure are quite common, then it becomes an ordinary circumstance and not an extraordinary circumstance. I am also trying to find out how many claims have they already paid out for on hydraulic problems.

If anyone can PM me with any info on the above that would be helpful and I will post my findings for anyone with a similar claim to use.

Cheers all for your help so far.

111KAB

sging1 wrote: »

What I am trying to put together now is how many hydraulic failure claims have they had, as if its loads and I feel it is by reading through this forum that hydraulic failure are quite common,

Hydraulic failures on aircraft are common, in fact so common they are seldom reported unless there is a common theme on a particular aircraft (whether it be Boeing or Airbus) in which case there will be a 'recall'. Having said hydraulic failures are commonplace aircraft are complex and the majority of mechanical movements on a plane are hydraulically operated so there are numerous systems and all can have failures.

I glanced at the Aviation Herald for hydraulic problems in 2012 and there were about 100 however this can only be the tip of the iceberg as most are repaired without mention to the Herald and indeed some are repaired well under the 3 hour threshold.

At the end of the day whether they are commonplace or not the fact is that technical problems are not an extraordinary circumstance. Also in your case the length of delay is inappropriate and the airline should have sorted an alternative aircraft for you to fly home/away in.

If you want to go the route of proving TC have continual problems with an hydraulic failure on their steering mechanism (and I wouldn't go this route) then you should request the tech logs in Court as 25 hours sounds an excessive period to replace and test two steering gaskets.

sging1

111KAB wrote: »

Hydraulic failures on aircraft are common, in fact so common they are seldom reported unless there is a common theme on a particular aircraft (whether it be Boeing or Airbus) in which case there will be a 'recall'. Having said hydraulic failures are commonplace aircraft are complex and the majority of mechanical movements on a plane are hydraulically operated so there are numerous systems and all can have failures.

I glanced at the Aviation Herald for hydraulic problems in 2012 and there were about 100 however this can only be the tip of the iceberg as most are repaired without mention to the Herald and indeed some are repaired well under the 3 hour threshold.

At the end of the day whether they are commonplace or not the fact is that technical problems are not an extraordinary circumstance. Also in your case the length of delay is inappropriate and the airline should have sorted an alternative aircraft for you to fly home/away in.

If you want to go the route of proving TC have continual problems with an hydraulic failure on their steering mechanism (and I wouldn't go this route) then you should request the tech logs in Court as 25 hours sounds an excessive period to replace and test two steering gaskets.

Thanks for the advice.
Just to add to this story and to show how incompetent TC are. After doing vast research trying to track down others on our flight. I found evidence that our plane was broken for three days and in fact they gave us the plane booked for the passengers on the Saturday to get us home, probably thinking they were going to fix ours that day, in fact these other passengers were then delayed 51 hours and had to contact the British Embassy to get them home.

On the subject of the length of the delay have you seen this ruling

“The court found as follows:
Mr Harbord's flight was cancelled, not delayed. This was because:

• A flight from Manchester to Vancouver is not the same thing as a flight from Stansted to Vancouver.
• A time differential of 24 hours is indicative more of cancellation than delay.
• The fact that the flight had the same flight number had no bearing on the case. “

See for full details: http://www.addleshawgoddard.com/view.asp?content_id=2320&parent_id=2317

Am I right in saying the case for a cancellation is more set in stone than a delay.

TMont1712

Hi all,

New to the thread but it's great/bad to see I'm not the only one to have suffered.

TCX2417 last night (Kos to Manchester) was 5 hours and 50 minutes late.

Official reason from Thomas Cook is "Unavoidable Operational Circumstances" with the Manchester fleet. That's as far as they would go in explaining. They gave no apology at the time and we only found out when sitting outside the hotel for an hour waiting for the transfer that never came. Some people went to the airport direct for a 7 hour delay!.

Food and drink at a local cafe was supplied but I'd have to describe this as basic rations and nothing else.

It is clear that they had to fly another plane out so it's perhaps something technical.

I have posted my claim using all Money Saving Expert templates on the Thomas Cook online support tool - I'll keep everyone updated on the progress and commence paper communication if the online method doesn't work.

Any more thoughts and feedback would be appreciated?

And if you also were on that flight claim, claim claim!

Ben

Oliver_Klozoff_2

TMont1712 wrote: »

Hi all,

New to the thread but it's great/bad to see I'm not the only one to have suffered.

TCX2417 last night (Kos to Manchester) was 5 hours and 50 minutes late.

Official reason from Thomas Cook is "Unavoidable Operational Circumstances" with the Manchester fleet. That's as far as they would go in explaining. They gave no apology at the time and we only found out when sitting outside the hotel for an hour waiting for the transfer that never came. Some people went to the airport direct for a 7 hour delay!.

Food and drink at a local cafe was supplied but I'd have to describe this as basic rations and nothing else.

It is clear that they had to fly another plane out so it's perhaps something technical.

I have posted my claim using all Money Saving Expert templates on the Thomas Cook online support tool - I'll keep everyone updated on the progress and commence paper communication if the online method doesn't work.

Any more thoughts and feedback would be appreciated?

And if you also were on that flight claim, claim claim!

Ben

They provided meal and drink, even though not great it's what they're supposed to do.

Nothing to do but wait really. If you don't get a reply then fire off another email requesting a response a within 14 days. If it did go to court you would want to show willingness to resolve this outside of court.

deadpanjohn

edtheduck wrote: »

Hi
I have received a further response from TC giving them (another) final opportunity to explain the 'extraordinary circumstances' to no avail.
They said,

"... I was very sorry to read that I have been unable to resolve your complaint to your satisfaction and I have taken the liberty of reviewing the information concerning your flight delay.
Unfortunately having done so, there is nothing further I can add to my previous correspondence , where I have attempted to address your concerns. Whilst I understand that you believe that the delay was not caused by extraordinary circumstances, I can confirm that the root cause of the delay could not have been foreseen.
It is regrettable that we have been unable to reach a conclusion on which we can both agree. however based on the information I have available, I do not feel compensation is appropriate in this case.
I trust I have clarified our position and I am sorry we have been unable to amicably resolve this case for you."

So I am just off the phone to them asking if this is their final word and telling them that they have not told me what the ECs were - the advisor told me it was " a broken window heater....it had been fixed before we took off, but then it reoccurred inflight and they turned us around to Manchester."
She said if I want to contact ABTA or the CAA and I said I knew about that...
She said it was covered by EC and I said it wasn't but it was ok , I would just be taking them to court.

Just want to verify now from those of you in the know, this definitely would not be classed as EC sure it wouldn't?
and also,
despite asking them 3 times to prove to me by way of explanation, that the circumstances were extraordinary, they plainly refused and I was only told verbally today - surely if it gets to court, this would look bad for them?
This is from our delay in September!!
Any advice or comments appreciated.
Thanks

I was on that flight ,my final word from Thomas Cook is "Thank you for your further correspondence. As stated in my previous letter a decision has been made on your claim and I am unable to add anything further. I have now closed your case." No explaination about EC.
Further to the heater problem and indeed the recurring problem as Thomas Cook described it. I heard on the grapevine from someone who works in Manchester airport that as well as the windscreen heater problem, the windscreen managed to get cracked and had to be replaced.
Took all the paper work to the local CAB,who agreed Ive done every thing right and thank you for your visit.
Take the chance on court action or foget about it?, the latter is looking favourite as no one despite quoting all sorts of regulations appears to really know.

sging1

After the home legal cover I had in place in 2011 initially said they cannot cover my case, as the claim originated out of the UK and that it was already in full flow to court, I just heard from them after I disgreed, that they have agreed to cover stage 2 of my case.

Just another little fight I had to overcome in my determination to take Thomas cook all the way to the end.

(I hope they are following these threads) :T

Oliver_Klozoff_2

deadpanjohn wrote: »

I was on that flight ,my final word from Thomas Cook is "Thank you for your further correspondence. As stated in my previous letter a decision has been made on your claim and I am unable to add anything further. I have now closed your case." No explaination about EC.
Further to the heater problem and indeed the recurring problem as Thomas Cook described it. I heard on the grapevine from someone who works in Manchester airport that as well as the windscreen heater problem, the windscreen managed to get cracked and had to be replaced.
Took all the paper work to the local CAB,who agreed Ive done every thing right and thank you for your visit.
Take the chance on court action or foget about it?, the latter is looking favourite as no one despite quoting all sorts of regulations appears to really know.

Classic delay tactic. Issue NBA, then MCOL. At this point they will have to give details.

jeanpaul

Just to let you everyone know that I have finally received my compensation.
Thanks to everyone who has posted and given sound advice to anyone who was making a claim. Without you, I may not be in the position I am now, £440 in my bank account.:)

shazzza68

jeanpaul wrote: »

Just to let you everyone know that I have finally received my compensation.
Thanks to everyone who has posted and given sound advice to anyone who was making a claim. Without you, I may not be in the position I am now, £440 in my bank account.:)

hi was this from thomas cook ???? and well done !!!!
:T