Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Thomas Cook ONLY

Mark2spark

My take on an engine failure mid flight, is to refer to Wallentin point 23:

Although the Community legislature included in that list ‘unexpected flight safety shortcomings’ and although a technical problem in an aircraft may be amongst such shortcomings, the fact remains that the circumstances surrounding such an event can be characterised as ‘extraordinary’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 only if they relate to an event which, like those listed in recital 14 in the preamble to that regulation, is not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and is beyond the actual control of that carrier on account of its nature or origin.

So, if an engine breaking down is part and parcel of the running of an airline, then it's not EC's.

batman44

Ok you got me started, an engine breaking down is not EC, this can be for any reason but mainly old tired worn out engines I know! Now as for what started all this the post about an engine fail in flight. You may find the aircraft in question is the infamous TC A330 G-OMYT, for the poster you will find a lot of info here about your flight-
http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowTopic-g1-i10702-k6110898-Thomas_Cook_Flight_Delays-Air_Travel.html

Now this engine blew on take off at manchester last year same as mine couple of years before, what did the AAIB find? Corrosion! cause by High Cycle Fatigue, - worn our engines!

JPears

batman, that was the infamous airplane I meant, just wrong manufacturer/type in my posting. Airbus, not Boeing, 330 not 767
I'm surprised pilots agree to flying this lemon....

batman44

JPears wrote: »

batman, that was the infamous airplane I meant, just wrong manufacturer/type in my posting. Airbus, not Boeing, 330 not 767
I'm surprised pilots agree to flying this lemon....

Jpears, I really knew what you meant to say, my post was aimed at the original poster about flight to Cuba from Manchester to much effort to go back a few pages for the poster name, Lol
I think the pilots avoid this aircraft like the plague if they can, I think now it is flown by test pilots!

Tyzap

JPears wrote: »

batman, that was the infamous airplane I meant, just wrong manufacturer/type in my posting. Airbus, not Boeing, 330 not 767
I'm surprised pilots agree to flying this lemon....

These are the brief reports of those incidents from the Aviation Herald. This might be why B767 came to mind.

Notice that following the last incident the engine was finally replaced.

http://avherald.com/h?search_term=G-OMYT&opt=512&dosearch=1&search.x=43&search.y=12

sging1

As some of you know, my case has been going on for a few years. I am claiming for a 24 hour long haul delay for 13 people in 2011. I agreed to all the recent stays resulting from the Huzar case’s and I even appeared in court, where it was deferred for us to get some clarifications.

After Thomas Cook constantly refused to communicate after the outcome of the Supreme Court ruling and last stay, back to court I went with a date set for the morning of Tuesday 14th January 2015.
The Friday before at 5.20pm, technically one business day before the hearing, TC agreed to settle the claim and requested that the court vacate the hearing. I strongly objected to the court that I did not want it vacated as TC gave me no details on what they were settling, as I have also requested full costs and interest due to unreasonable behaviour of not communicating right up until just before this latest hearing and they did not submit their bundle either. Cost’s were also a condition of me agreeing to the stays if they still pushed it into court after the SC ruling.
The courts sided with TC and vacated, but gave us 28 days to agree costs or go back. Even though I got read receipt's, I got no response from TC's solicitors, three weeks later and they finally sent me the consent order for the settlement, they offered me less than 8% of the claim and no costs at all.

They say they will not deal with me on any of the others in my party and costs are not due. The argument of me dealing with the 13 in our party was settled back in 2013 where all of the party supplied to TC and the courts a signed authorisation letter for me to act on their behalf that included flight references for each. We have continued for over two years without this being a further issue and it was not an issue when we had the first court hearing in 2013 and they bring it up again this late in the case.

They can’t tell the court they will settle a long running claim, a claim I started through MCOL for one set amount and then only pay a fraction of it.

I have now written to the courts again with quite a strong and detailed letter to get it re-listed again.

So be aware of this further delay tactic, tell the court to keep it listed unless TC tell you what they are settling, they took three weeks to tell me after they said they would settle my claim, one that they are not really settling . They probably didn’t have the resources to go to court or even submit a court bundle. :mad:

Vauban

What a miserable business. I hope your letter is put before the judge and that a new hearing is agreed expeditiously. It is outrageous for the airline (if this is what happened) to say they will agree to pay the claim, secure a vacation of the hearing on this basis, and then offer only a fraction of it. Indeed, I think that would be an abuse of process.

How much is the total claim for sging1? You say you are claiming "full costs" - what do you mean by this? If your claim is on the small claims track, it would be quite unusual to get these. Can you elaborate?

NoviceAngel

Vauban wrote: »

How much is the total claim for sging1? You say you are claiming "full costs" - what do you mean by this? If your claim is on the small claims track, it would be quite unusual to get these. Can you elaborate?

As it's a claim for 13 people, it may well not be on the small claims track, but how you managed that via MCOL I'm unsure, unless the Judge agreed to add all the claimants at the outset of the case ?

batman44

sging1 wrote: »

As some of you know, my case has been going on for a few years. I am claiming for a 24 hour long haul delay for 13 people in 2011. I agreed to all the recent stays resulting from the Huzar case’s and I even appeared in court, where it was deferred for us to get some clarifications.

After Thomas Cook constantly refused to communicate after the outcome of the Supreme Court ruling and last stay, back to court I went with a date set for the morning of Tuesday 14th January 2015.
The Friday before at 5.20pm, technically one business day before the hearing, TC agreed to settle the claim and requested that the court vacate the hearing. I strongly objected to the court that I did not want it vacated as TC gave me no details on what they were settling, as I have also requested full costs and interest due to unreasonable behaviour of not communicating right up until just before this latest hearing and they did not submit their bundle either. Cost’s were also a condition of me agreeing to the stays if they still pushed it into court after the SC ruling.
The courts sided with TC and vacated, but gave us 28 days to agree costs or go back. Even though I got read receipt's, I got no response from TC's solicitors, three weeks later and they finally sent me the consent order for the settlement, they offered me less than 8% of the claim and no costs at all.

They say they will not deal with me on any of the others in my party and costs are not due. The argument of me dealing with the 13 in our party was settled back in 2013 where all of the party supplied to TC and the courts a signed authorisation letter for me to act on their behalf that included flight references for each. We have continued for over two years without this being a further issue and it was not an issue when we had the first court hearing in 2013 and they bring it up again this late in the case.

They can’t tell the court they will settle a long running claim, a claim I started through MCOL for one set amount and then only pay a fraction of it.

I have now written to the courts again with quite a strong and detailed letter to get it re-listed again.

So be aware of this further delay tactic, tell the court to keep it listed unless TC tell you what they are settling, they took three weeks to tell me after they said they would settle my claim, one that they are not really settling . They probably didn’t have the resources to go to court or even submit a court bundle. :mad:

Terrible - Weighmans?

sging1

Vauban wrote: »

What a miserable business. I hope your letter is put before the judge and that a new hearing is agreed expeditiously. It is outrageous for the airline (if this is what happened) to say they will agree to pay the claim, secure a vacation of the hearing on this basis, and then offer only a fraction of it. Indeed, I think that would be an abuse of process.

How much is the total claim for sging1? You say you are claiming "full costs" - what do you mean by this? If your claim is on the small claims track, it would be quite unusual to get these. Can you elaborate?

I saw the e-mail they sent to the court where it said they would settle the claim and requested it be vacated for this reason.

The full claim is for 7800 Euros. I'm claiming costs for unreasonable behaviour which can be done for:

Making unnecessary applications.
Causing a late adjournment of the hearing.
Failure to comply with directions or orders.
Refusing to negotiate.
Failure to comply with protocols.

Most of which they have done as like happened last month.
I booked a barrister to come with me this time but the week before the case I wrote to TC asking them to settle and avoid these extra unnecessary costs like my time off work etc and the barrister would have only charged a small amount then which I may have absorbed, they knew this but they just refused to respond until late on the Friday, giving us just one business day to try and stop it being vacated. It was unfair at that late stage to cancel the barrister. I want to make sure interest is added also as it’s been going on for a long time.