Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Thomas Cook ONLY

Vauban

NoviceAngel wrote: »

Hi infodeals,

This is of course a nonsense, read Vaubans guide it's all in there.

The actual time of the delay is the time the flight landed at it's intended destination and the actual time the door is opened.

Although to be fair, if the technical problem with the plane was an emergency it probably will be argued by TC that it's a genuine EC, search 'EC during flight' that might give you some posts to look through.

.....and keep the SCs Huzar ruling in mind

NA's point is a very interesting one. If a technical problem occurs mid-air and produces a "flight safety shortcoming" airlines will certainly argue that this is extraordinary. And in their pathetic and now discredited list of extraordinary circumstances, the CAA made the same distinction.

But interestingly there is nothing in law (as I understand it) to justify this position - even if it feels instinctively fair. The Wallentin and Huzar judgements don't make this distinction, for example, but rather focus on what causes the technical problem. If it is something not generally inherent in the operation of an airline (such as sabotage) then the technical problem is extraordinary. But if it's wear and tear or simply component failure then it's not - even if it happens mid-air.

EDIT: I see JP has beat to me to the same point!

NoviceAngel

JPears wrote: »

But novice - the engine broke down - that's a technical, whether its an emergency or not. I hope its not that dodgy 767 with the right engine issues again.......

Yes, I agree JP :beer:
I tried to word it carefully, because an 'emergency' is what TC you can bet will be saying, but Huzar has sealed the deal on 'technicals'

EDIT .....and Vauban beat me to my clarification, except your explanation is better than mine..

Just getting my t, chicken piri-piri tonight, but there's so much more I want to explore about this point back after t.....

Rsvjocky

Talking Delayed flight 13/03/2005

Hi I was wandering if anyone has had any success in claiming compensation for flights back in 2005, we flew from Manchester to Cuba, the delay was 6 hours and all we received was £3.00 meal vouchers.... I would appreciate any advice or anyone who could point me in the right direction.
cheers
p's not sure iv done this in the right place

NoviceAngel

Rsvjocky wrote: »

Talking Delayed flight 13/03/2005

ohh I hate doing this, sorry Rsvjocky, no chance whatsoever over 6 years ago I'm afraid

Grumpelstiltskin

Rsvjocky wrote: »

Talking Delayed flight 13/03/2005

Hi I was wandering if anyone has had any success in claiming compensation for flights back in 2005, we flew from Manchester to Cuba, the delay was 6 hours and all we received was £3.00 meal vouchers.... I would appreciate any advice or anyone who could point me in the right direction.
cheers
p's not sure iv done this in the right place

You asked this last week and I answered.


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4384693

NoviceAngel

Grumpelstiltskin wrote: »

You asked this last week and I answered.


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4384693

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/67600917#Comment_67600917

Thank god for that I thought I was the first person to tell Rsvjocky, perhaprs he/she didn't believe you :eek: in fact I wouldn't believe me either, Anybody else have an opinion ? :mad:

NoviceAngel

NoviceAngel wrote: »

Hi infodeals,

This is of course a nonsense, read Vaubans guide it's all in there.

The actual time of the delay is the time the flight landed at it's intended destination and the actual time the door is opened.

Although to be fair, if the technical problem with the plane was an emergency it probably will be argued by TC that it's a genuine EC, search 'EC during flight' that might give you some posts to look through.

.....and keep the SCs Huzar ruling in mind

NoviceAngel wrote: »

Yes, I agree JP
I tried to word it carefully, because an 'emergency' is what TC you can bet will be saying, but Huzar has sealed the deal on 'technicals'

EDIT .....and Vauban beat me to my clarification, except your explanation is better than mine..

Ok, I posted the above but was short on time and I wanted to re-visit.

Before I start, I want to lay down a caveat (thanks google, makes me look intelligent).

First of all I agree 100% with JP and PtL Vauban, who are true ambassadors for our community, but I still have to challenge, just a little . I have no legal background whatsoever and these are thoughts exploring my own weird imagination. Please allow me to play devils advocate for once..

In fact, I don't feel that I have to challenge that hard

Vauban wrote:

...... If a technical problem occurs mid-air and produces a "flight safety shortcoming" airlines will certainly argue that this is extraordinary. And in their pathetic and now discredited list of extraordinary circumstances, the CAA made the same distinction.

But interestingly there is nothing in law (as I understand it) to justify this position - even if it feels instinctively fair......

Ok let's set off on our mystical journey, you board your ON-TIME flight with :A airways, a quarter of the way through the flight, alarm bells ring, buzzers sound in the c0ck pit (EDIT forum replaced with !!!! :T) One of the fan blades in the right hand engine is suffering metal fatigue and it's in danger of slicing through the 6mm of aluminium next to me like butter... (thanks for that thought JP)

The pilot contacts :A airways and makes it clear that there is a problem with the right hand engine, he asks for guidance, after investigations the ground team feel, it would be safer to land at the nearest airport for a full safety investigation, they contact their head office and the upper echelons of :A airways become involved.

They quickly work out that to divert and pay compensation because of a 'technical' would cost possibly nearly £100,000 so they ask the question 'Could the plane fly on to it's destination to avoid possible claims ?

You can see where I'm going with this and although I agree with the point that this is purely a 'technical' and that you can point to Wallentin and Huzar to argue your justified case for the delay claim, I personally would rather be delayed in this instance and get that bl00dy plane on the ground safely, rather than any risk to flight safety as a result of the interpretation of EC261/2004 regs.

Now I know you could say that if the engine had been inspected properly, metal fatigue in the blades should have been picked up, I absolutely agree but that's not the point I'm making.....

... To put it as succinctly as possible, I DO NOT want any flight that develops a technical in mid flight pushed on by the accountants in fear of having to pay EC261 claims.


I would rather let the airlines, claim a victory on this one, although there is no legal precedent, that I'm aware of either way...

Sorry to be standing up for them for once, my normal self will return tomorrow.....

Cheers,

NoviceAngel

Skid_Marks

Novice......I don't know if this helps but I know someone who experienced engine failure on a journey back from Tenerife and they had return to Tenerife, staying overnight. I referred him to Botts and they advised that he had grounds for a claim. That claim is currently stayed as a consequence of Van der Lans.

NoviceAngel

Skid_Marks wrote: »

Novice......I don't know if this helps but I know someone who experienced engine failure on a journey back from Tenerife and they had return to Tenerife, staying overnight. I referred him to Botts and they advised that he had grounds for a claim. That claim is currently stayed as a consequence of Van der Lans.

Yes, I agree with Botts, under the regs and post Wallentin and Huzar, there is no doubt in my mind that a mid air 'flight safety shortcoming' is NOT an EC as defined by the regs EC261/2004.

I would rather that not be the case, in this specific instance, because of the reasons I set out above, it's not going to be a popular view on here, after all it's a flight delay forum and we should be seen to support claims, but just sometimes when you disagree with the interpretation of the regs in favour of the passenger, but to the possible detriment of flight safety, I just think it's the right thing to do to say so.

Cheers,

NoviceAngel

Skid_Marks

What you haven't taken into account in your little scenario is the cost to the airline if they made the wrong call and the plane continued on its journey making a crash landing! This would be far greater than the cost of compensation for a delay and I doubt if anyone in the company would want to be making that kind of decision given the risks involved.