Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Thomas Cook ONLY

Mark2spark

iandv wrote: »

Its just that according to EU261 a technical problem can still be outside an airlines control, I just want to know if this is the case with us

What examples can you come up with, for an EC to be outside the airlines control, that applies to your flight, ian? I mean, you were there? So how would you interpret the rules as you read them, in applying them to your delay?

David_e

nw42 wrote: »

you seem to have a problem with people asking questions just because the answers might be available elsewhere, why's that?

Have a guess! People who give assistance, advice and support on here are not getting paid, you know! I think it's common courtesy to use any free resource bearing that in mind. Why would you expect people to draft custom responses to queries if the answer is already on the forum?

nw42 wrote: »

It doesn't offer a very nice welcome to anyone new, like me

We're all grown ups on here and people are entitled to make direct comments that reflect their views. You've just done it and so can anyone else.

nw42

Thanks for the reply Mark2spark, appreciated. Thing is, it seems to me as though people are being told this, "there are 200 pages, if you want the answers then put a bit of effort in and read the thread", fair enough, to a point.
However, there are plenty of us that would be quite daunted by reading so much, for various reasons and not all to do with being lazy. So, to look at this thread as a room where some of the people who hang out there are that clued up on the subject that 9 times out of 10 they can give you a snap answer, somettimes in less words than it takes to say "read the thread from start to finish".
Yet it seems to be the stock answer unless the question happens to whet the appitite of the said clued up folk, naturally they love a challenge, but spare a thought for us mundane types who just want a quick answer because we aren't able to memorise the whole 200pages.

Anyway, my question, pretty similar to ian's really, I've had similar response from TC and am wondering whether or not I should try and ascertain the nature of the technical problem before sending them an NBA letter. After all it may turn out that the fault was one that gave them a get out.


I'm sure the answer probably does lie somewhere within the thread, possibly the first page (eh chilli) but do I really have to read every word again.

Trust me when I say I'm not wanting to cause upset but if any of you regulars have a look over the last couple of pages then you will see what I mean, it doesn't say welcome to the thread, we're here to help.

Thanks again.

nw42

David_e wrote: »

Have a guess! People who give assistance, advice and support on here are not getting paid, you know! I think it's common courtesy to use any free resource bearing that in mind. Why would you expect people to draft custom responses to queries if the answer is already on the forum?



We're all grown ups on here and people are entitled to make direct comments that reflect their views. You've just done it and so can anyone else.

Absolutely David, we're all adults. It does say on the side of my posts that I'm a newbie, it's especially requests that you be nice to me. I made a first post in the hope that someone would say, yes you're doing the right thing, or you need to do this or that first, whatever, maybe just a friendly response. It's not a big deal that I didn't get one, that's the nature of forums sometimes.
Anyway, so I thought I'd read some more pages and perhaps I would get lucky, no joy, then along came someone who seemed to have a similar question, no luck, he got the same answer as everyone else.

Vauban

nw42: there are a lot of people who have spent a lot of time answering a lot of questions, a lot of which are repeated and easily found elsewhere. So aim off for a little frustration, which is understandable.

I agree with you that we don't want the forum to be a rude or unwelcoming place, but nor is it the Citizens Advice Bureau or a personal research service. It is rather - at least in my view - a source of useful knowledge, like a library. Of course the library is made more difficult to use when people keep posting repeated questions. If 85% of the posts in this thread were removed, for example, you would have a much easier time of it.

Some people baulk at the prospect of reading all the posts in the main threads, but frankly several hours spent on here is but a fraction of the time you will spend in total if you pursue your claim. And it is the only way - unless you are an experienced litigant - that you can develop the knowledge and expertise necessary. I'm afraid this is simply true: there are no short cuts.

As to your own question, where you are I think asking whether to continue correspondence with the airline or proceed to NBA and court, you must make your own decision. The first link in the FAQs on page of this thread offers pretty clear advice though. And - if you really have read most of the posts on here - would you say that corresponding with the airline following their rejection of your claim is a productive enterprise? Your NBA (you've read the suggested templates presumably) gives the airline a final opportunity to explain the circumstances of your delay, of course. So what value does a per-NBA letter have in these circumstances? It will merely smack of uncertainty and prevarication, and will be therefore likely ignored by the airline.

This is 15 minutes of my life I won't now get back. But I hope it was useful.

batman44

Mark2spark wrote: »

What examples can you come up with, for an EC to be outside the airlines control, that applies to your flight, ian? I mean, you were there? So how would you interpret the rules as you read them, in applying them to your delay?

The question has already been answered by the forth chamber on this.


EU court 4th Chamber Sturgeon v Condor Final paragraph ruling 3.
Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation or delay of a flight is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision, unless that problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control.
As I understand this in dictionary terms;
Origin - (also origins) the beginning or cause of something
Nature - all the animals, plants, rocks, etc. in the world and all the features, forces, and processes that happen or existindependently of people.
The Court agreed with Wallentin-Hermann that any technical issues during aircraft maintenance don’t constitute "extraordinary circumstances" that would allow airlines to avoid paying passengers compensation for canceled flights.
The fourth Chamber also ruled that under the definition of "extraordinary circumstances", technical faults within an aircraft should not be included and therefore an air carrier cannot rely on a technical fault within an aircraft as a defence from a valid claim under the Regulation.

Fourth Chamber ruling regarding reg 261.
Hope this helps

In a court you need to legalese it

chili2001

nw42 wrote: »

Chili2001 if you don't mind me saying you seem to have a problem with people asking questions just because the answers might be available elsewhere, why's that?
It doesn't offer a very nice welcome to anyone new, like me, also I expect iandv being a regular poster isn't very impressed with your curt replies.

I have a question to ask myself, I've read the front page but the answer doesn't seem to be there, I've also read over 100 pages of the thread, still not found the answer to my question.
At what stage do you think it will be ok to ask my question, how will I know if the answer lies in the thread, even if I read it all?

I'm sure this place was set up so people could seek help, instead we're all told to read the first page, why do you bother replying if that's all you have to say?

Not a great 2nd post I know but you really aren't making people welcome, someone needed to say it.

thanks for listening.

Well as it happens I DO mind you saying. Did you make your mind up that I was being rude and unwelcoming after viewing one post I made directing someone quite politely to the answers to their questions on page 1?

Did you read ANY of my many other posts where I think i've been incredibly helpful to others (including new users) as others have been to me, so I do take great offence at your remarks.
You say in another post that you don't think people are being lazy in not reading the FAQ's but thats exactly what it is. Why should I spoon feed new users such as yourself with information when I, and many other users on this forum have done it the hard way? The information is easy to find so I can't say I believe you when you claim to have read 100 pages. The airlines won't make it easy for you to claim so you will need to prepare yourself for a lot of hard work starting now.

A good example of mine (and others frustration) of quite frankly unnecessary questions came the other day when a new user asked what to do after the airline rejected their claim. Many people told them to "read the forum". I told them (quite helpfully and politely) to sent a notice before action and then proceed to MCOL.

Their next post was to ask what a NBA was!

Literally the very next post by a different new user asked the same question about what to do? The answer was on the same page.

Its unnecessary questions like these that clutter the forum and make information harder to find for everyone. Including yourself.

I actually think this thread should have been locked about 100 pages ago. The information you required would have been much easier to find and it would have saved you from being offended by such rude forum members such as myself.

chili2001

Centipede100 wrote: »

Chili, you need to take a lie down in a dark room and swallow a chill(i) pill..!!!:p

Ha! Will do.

bateel13

Following the usual rejection letters from TC earlier this year I wrote to the AESA in June giving them the facts. I have today received their reply detailing their investigation and the report back from TC stating that our flight (TCX2103) was delayed due to "previous rotation".

"In this case AESA considers that the reason of the delay given by the company would not constitute extraordinary circumstances pursuant to Reg.(EC) No.261/2004. Acordingly AESA considers that the air carrier should pay you compensation for the amount of 400 Euros per passenger".

I know that this is not an automatic "win" for us but at least the AESA feel we should be compensated. However, I recall from previous forum users that this may not stand up in court, depending on the presiding judge. Any thoughts would be appreciated as at least it gives me a glimmer of hope!

JPears

Centipede100 wrote: »

Chili, you need to take a lie down in a dark room and swallow a chill(i) pill..!!!:p

I would prescribe a large glass of mellow red wine...