Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Thomas Cook ONLY

edtheduck_2

well have heard that TC got back to someone else on our flight saying,

Failure of on-condition/condition monitored parts. i.e. parts that should not require unscheduled maintenance or replacement during normal operational service.

This is just taken from the updated EU guidance and despite being asked loads of times to be specific, they insist on saying its a private matter!! Surely woefully insufficient ?

I do happen to have heard 'unofficially' (never in writing) that it was a broken window heater/demister, which they supposedly 'fixed', we took off, it wasn't fixed and they turned around to Manchester.
comments anyone?
Thanks

batman44

Read on the Thomson thread that they intend or have appealed the Huzar judgement, that being the case it is not case law so should not have any bearing on claims, correct?
That being said the main arguement is that it's beyond the airlines control, so as the judge said they are in control of fixing it, nobody else so it's not beyond the airlines control and it is technical failure. passengers don't control the aircraft, airports don't control the workings of the aircraft, so how the flip can they get away with saying it's EC?

batman44

edtheduck wrote: »

well have heard that TC got back to someone else on our flight saying,

Failure of on-condition/condition monitored parts. i.e. parts that should not require unscheduled maintenance or replacement during normal operational service.

This is just taken from the updated EU guidance and despite being asked loads of times to be specific, they insist on saying its a private matter!! Surely woefully insufficient ?

I do happen to have heard 'unofficially' (never in writing) that it was a broken window heater/demister, which they supposedly 'fixed', we took off, it wasn't fixed and they turned around to Manchester.
comments anyone?
Thanks

Find out what your aircraft was and then search for the MEL list on google, this gives the go-no-go items for flight. Even so failure on their part to maintain the aircraft is not an excuse, just because it's under the manufacturer's lifespan. A lightbulb should last 5,000 hours but in reality? A tank of petrol on a new car should do 50+ miles to the gallon in reality? They are all tested under controlled conditions not in service conditions.

Wallentin-
The frequency of the technical problems experienced by an air carrier is not in itself a factor from which the presence or absence of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 can be concluded.
3. The fact that an air carrier has complied with the minimum rules on maintenance of an aircraft cannot in itself suffice to establish that that carrier has taken ‘all reasonable measures’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 and, therefore, to relieve that carrier of its obligation to pay compensation provided for by Articles 5(1)(c) and 7(1) of that regulation.

David_e

batman44 wrote: »

Read on the Thomson thread that they intend or have appealed the Huzar judgement, that being the case it is not case law so should not have any bearing on claims, correct?

As I understand it, it wasn't precedent in terms of other judges being required to follow it. However, the opinion of HHJ Platts, being senior (in whatever sense) does carry some weight, as I understand it, which is why the advice seems to be to include a copy of Huzar in your court documents.

Unless the judgment is overturned, it stands.

It remains to be seen whether, if an appeal is lodged, airlines seek to put cases on hold pending the outcome. Whether that is likely, I don't know. I'm sure someone will be able to clarify.

chili2001

My claim has become a joke. TC want a set aside which we refused as we found it hard to believe that they received all the other correspondence we sent them including the default judgement but not the court papers before them. So at the moment it is going to court to see if we can get the judgement to stand whereas they still want the set aside granted. A bit of a joke really. Going to court to see if it is going to court!
Hopefully we will get the judgement to stand as it will teach them a lesson about telling the truth so they won't keep doing this to other people and trying to waste as much time as possible.

laudan

Just put my claim in and had the standard response so Im and just getting together my response.

Just wondering if anyone else had tried to claim Bodrum to Newcastle Sunday 29.08.2010 Flight No TCX547L

Thanks

Mark2spark

Notgoingaway wrote: »

We are currently awaiting our court date for our flight delay tcx893 sanford to manchester 10th november 2012.I only found this forum after we had started court proceedings.after reading through this thread I would like to ask opinions on if we should have based our claim on denied boarding...
We arrived at the airport at our correct time to check in to be told our aircraft was no longer available due to disruptions within the fleet.basically they would be sending two smaller aircraft in its place that would also need to re fuel in Canada on the way home.
Both flights were later than the one we should have been on (15:40) the first one left at 18:15 and the second one at 20:15 .we were on the second one were we denied boarding? In total we arrived home 7 and half hours late.

I don't see the point in going down the denied boarding route, - although clearly, you were. Just that even the first plane was over 5 hours late, so the point on whether you was on the first flight is neither here nor there, you would have still been delayed in excess of the trigger time.

Alex444

[FONT=&quot]Our flight TCX3295 on [/FONT][FONT=&quot]4th November 2013[/FONT][FONT=&quot] from Tenerife South Airport to [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Glasgow International[/FONT][FONT=&quot] with the scheduled departure time of 15.20, arrived [/FONT][FONT=&quot]264 minutes[/FONT][FONT=&quot] late at Glasgow International Airport.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]From 29c in Tenerife to -3c on landing in Glasgow...BRRRRR.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Well wrote to them today, flight coming out from Glasgow was delayed due to technical problems, plane eventually replaced by one sent up from Gatwick, flight from Glasgow due to take off at 09.20 that took off at 14.20.
[/FONT]

lbinks86

Hi All
I filed a claim against Thomas Cook and Thomas Cook kept replying with no's. I then decided to use a NWNF company to help me get compensation. I used Bott & Co which were recommended by this website, after a few months, today I got an email saying Thomas Cook have agreed to pay the compensation. YIPPPPEEEE !!!! Dont give up, you can do it

Vauban

lbinks86 wrote: »

YIPPPPEEEE !!!! Dont give up, you can do it

Or at least pay someone to do it for you;)

Good result - well done for not walking away. But what a shame the airline didn't just pay out when they should have, instead of wasting everyone's time.