Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Thomas Cook ONLY

rhylbloke

Hi, my wife and I travelled on flight TCX 2474 to Zante from Manchester on 6/9/12, which took off over 6 hours late. We were told at the check in desk that it was due to a bird strike, and were given a piddling amount of money, worth about half an airport price breakfast each, to compensate us for hanging about in an airport for about eight hours.
I claimed with the template letter in 2013 and was eventually told by them that it was a technical fault and not covered. After the Huzar (?) case I wrote again but heard nothing back. However, I saw the other day a story online about a website which would send an email for you if you just put your flight details in, which I did, and have just received an email from TC , which got my hopes up at first, but rather than saying "technical fault", now they've gone back to the "bird strike" explanation, which they say is not covered.
Has anybody else had any luck in claiming for this particular flight ?
Thanks

razorsedge

rhylbloke wrote: »

Hi, my wife and I travelled on flight TCX 2474 to Zante from Manchester on 6/9/12, which took off over 6 hours late. We were told at the check in desk that it was due to a bird strike, and were given a piddling amount of money, worth about half an airport price breakfast each, to compensate us for hanging about in an airport for about eight hours.
I claimed with the template letter in 2013 and was eventually told by them that it was a technical fault and not covered. After the Huzar (?) case I wrote again but heard nothing back. However, I saw the other day a story online about a website which would send an email for you if you just put your flight details in, which I did, and have just received an email from TC , which got my hopes up at first, but rather than saying "technical fault", now they've gone back to the "bird strike" explanation, which they say is not covered.
Has anybody else had any luck in claiming for this particular flight ?
Thanks

Seems like the bird strike (if it actually happened) was not on your flight to start with.

Try searching this forum for bird strike (or birdstrike) info. There is plenty there.

A quick use of google also leads to these articles:
http://www.bottonline.co.uk/press-releases/judge-rules-that-bird-strikes-are-not-extraordinary-circumstances
http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.php?news_id=2016472
http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopic-g1-i10702-k8427061-o20-Judge_rules_bird_strikes_not_extraordinary_circumstances-Air_Travel.html
https://www.flight-delayed.co.uk/news/2015/04/29/manchester-judge-rules-bird-strike-not-extraordinary
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/11571979/Passengers-delayed-by-bird-strikes-can-claim-compensation-judge-rules.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/articles/are-bird-strikes-no-longer-extraordinary-events-judge-rules-in-favor-of-flyers-grants-compensation.html

My opinion is that birdstrikes are not an extraordinary circumstance and the court agreed with me in my case against Thomson (which was concluded before the case outlined in the articles above).

Scruffywuffy

I was delayed last December for 3 separate reasons - the reason Thomson gave me was the first plane was delayed due to birdstrike on a previous rotation.


They then didn't engage with me until I issued a claim against them, saying that birdstrike was not an extraordinary circumstance (especially when it happened on a previous rotation) and within a week of them acknowledging my claim, they called me to settle.


The links above look to be helpful and in my Particulars (amongst other things) I quoted from the Ash v Thomas Cook claim where Mr Ash won his case when his plane was delayed due to birdstrike - someone else on the forum has also just won when the delay was due to birdstrike.

MSD1970

I had a flight delayed (Tenerife to Manchester) over 24 hours because planes were diverted to get people out of Tunisia when the Arab Spring kicked off a few years ago.


Would that reason be one which would prevent a compensation claim?


Any advice appreciated.

Vauban

I think a decision to use your plane to evacuate folk from Tunisia is an operational decision by the airline and firmly within its control. Compensation therefore due. Read my guide for what to do next.

rhylbloke

razorsedge wrote: »

Seems like the bird strike (if it actually happened) was not on your flight to start with.

Try searching this forum for bird strike (or birdstrike) info. There is plenty there.

A quick use of google also leads to these articles:
http://www.bottonline.co.uk/press-releases/judge-rules-that-bird-strikes-are-not-extraordinary-circumstances
http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.php?news_id=2016472
http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopic-g1-i10702-k8427061-o20-Judge_rules_bird_strikes_not_extraordinary_circumstances-Air_Travel.html
https://www.flight-delayed.co.uk/news/2015/04/29/manchester-judge-rules-bird-strike-not-extraordinary
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/11571979/Passengers-delayed-by-bird-strikes-can-claim-compensation-judge-rules.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/articles/are-bird-strikes-no-longer-extraordinary-events-judge-rules-in-favor-of-flyers-grants-compensation.html

My opinion is that birdstrikes are not an extraordinary circumstance and the court agreed with me in my case against Thomson (which was concluded before the case outlined in the articles above).

Thanks very much for that. I'll get back in touch with TC now that I have an email address for them which seems to work ( I sent them another MSE template letter by post at the beginning of this year but heard nothing - I was amazed to get a reply - albeit a negative reply - within a couple of days after submitting my details via the "donotpay" website )

steviebrett123

FLIGHT DELAY TCX6815 27/28 APRIL - we complained direct to T Cook and got similar responses to other member posts. We then contacted the CAA as suggested by TC and the CAA took up our delay complaint but decided passengers on TCX6815 were not entitled to compensation which we completely reject. Debris on a runway cannot be used as an excuse as it is one of the common daily hazards in running an airport and keeping the runways/taxi ways debris free. This was the 3rd flight I had been on that has suffered tyre damage so it is not an exceptional case. In the other 2 instances the damaged tyre was changed in less than 2 hours. The 'Hurghada Fiasco' is all to do with the fact that Thomas Cook had no procedure in place to replace a damaged tyre on an aircraft at an airport it regularly flys to/from. If tyres had been available , no doubt we would have only been delayed around 2 hours. As for the hotel and our rights to refreshments, phone calls etc. T Cook are still refusing to pay us even 1p towards the cost of phone calls and refreshments we paid for during the 24 hour delay and that's despite T Cook being aware of and have seen a copy of the Thomas Cook official letter we were given on landing at Newcastle (Which should have been handed out at Hurghada!) in which the letter states the airline 'would be happy to provide passengers with refreshments' etc. How can they argue against the content of their own letter which clearly stated what we were entitled to. If you were on a flight only deal, you are even entitled to a refund of the air fare which TC have also refused to pay out. We have now submitted our claim for 600 euros through one of the online solicitor websites and fingers crossed we get a result. We will also be taking up the hotel/refreshments issues with the CAA.

111KAB

As mentioned numerous times the CAA are a useless/worthless/toothless bunch who are funded by the airline industry so you can see where their loyalties lie .... the fact that TC suggested contacting the CAA about sums it up really. The CAA will again probably agree with TC that the hotel/refreshment issue is your problem and not TC's.
Good luck that your online solicitor gets something for you .... best way to go if you cannot face/don't want to conduct your own case.

Sarge94061

steviebrett123 wrote: »

FLIGHT DELAY TCX6815 27/28 APRIL - we complained direct to T Cook and got similar responses to other member posts. We then contacted the CAA as suggested by TC and the CAA took up our delay complaint but decided passengers on TCX6815 were not entitled to compensation which we completely reject. Debris on a runway cannot be used as an excuse as it is one of the common daily hazards in running an airport and keeping the runways/taxi ways debris free. This was the 3rd flight I had been on that has suffered tyre damage so it is not an exceptional case. In the other 2 instances the damaged tyre was changed in less than 2 hours. The 'Hurghada Fiasco' is all to do with the fact that Thomas Cook had no procedure in place to replace a damaged tyre on an aircraft at an airport it regularly flys to/from. If tyres had been available , no doubt we would have only been delayed around 2 hours. As for the hotel and our rights to refreshments, phone calls etc. T Cook are still refusing to pay us even 1p towards the cost of phone calls and refreshments we paid for during the 24 hour delay and that's despite T Cook being aware of and have seen a copy of the Thomas Cook official letter we were given on landing at Newcastle (Which should have been handed out at Hurghada!) in which the letter states the airline 'would be happy to provide passengers with refreshments' etc. How can they argue against the content of their own letter which clearly stated what we were entitled to. If you were on a flight only deal, you are even entitled to a refund of the air fare which TC have also refused to pay out. We have now submitted our claim for 600 euros through one of the online solicitor websites and fingers crossed we get a result. We will also be taking up the hotel/refreshments issues with the CAA.

I submitted a claim through Bott and Co for the wife and I back in June and have confirmation from them that papers have been filed with the Courts - looks like Bott agree with most people on here and agree that FOD damage to a tyre can't be classed as an EC.

batman44

Sarge94061 wrote: »

I submitted a claim through Bott and Co for the wife and I back in June and have confirmation from them that papers have been filed with the Courts - looks like Bott agree with most people on here and agree that FOD damage to a tyre can't be classed as an EC.

Part and parcel of running an airline bud, nature and origin and all that- Sky Libary

[FONT=&quot]Foreign Object Debris or Foreign Object Damage (FOD)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Description[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Foreign Object Debris (FOD) at airports includes any object found in an inappropriate location that, as a result of being in that location, can damage equipment or injure personnel. FOD includes a wide range of material, including loose hardware, pavement fragments, catering supplies, building materials, rocks, sand, pieces of luggage, and even wildlife. FOD is found at terminal gates, cargo aprons, taxiways, runways, and run-up pads. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Effects[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]FOD causes damage through direct contact with airplanes, such as by cutting airplane tires or being ingested into engines, or as a result of being thrown by [/FONT][FONT=&quot]jet blast[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and damaging airplanes or injuring people. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The resulting damage is estimated to cost the aerospace industry $4 billion a year. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A dramatic example of FOD damage is the loss of the Air France Concorde, which struck FOD on the runway during take-off from Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport in 2000 (see Further Reading). [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Defences[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Defences include the following: [/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Regular and frequent inspection of the airfield, including aircraft manoeuvring areas and adjacent open spaces; [/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Suspension of runway operations upon notification to ATC about FOD on or near the runway until FOD has been removed and the runway inspected, as necessary [/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Regular and frequent inspection of the airfield buildings and equipment and immediate repair or withdraw from service of items likely to create FOD; and, [/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Removal of FOD as soon as it is identified. [/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Inspection of the parking gate to ensure that it is free of FOD, including ground equipment, and of ice, snow or other material capable of reducing braking action, is normally the responsibility of the airline representatives. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Typical Scenarios[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Debris falls onto the runway from an aircraft or vehicle. An aircraft taking off passes over the debris, causing damage to its landing gear. [/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]A rubbish bag falls from a vehicle while an aircraft is being replenished and enters an aircraft engine. [/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Ground servicing equipment is not withdrawn behind the safeline on the apron and is struck by an aircraft entering the stand, causing damage to the aircraft and equipment. [/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]A loose piece of fencing material blows onto the apron, striking passengers walking to the aircraft. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Contributory Factors[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Poor maintenance of buildings, equipment and aircraft; [/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Inadequate staff training; [/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Pressure on staff not to delay movements for inspection; [/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Weather (e.g. FOD may be created by strong winds or may be blown onto the airfield); [/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Presence of uncontrolled (e.g. contractors') vehicles on the airfield. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Solutions[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A program to control airport FOD[/FONT][FONT=&quot] is most effective when it addresses four main areas: [/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Training. [/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Inspection by airline, airport, and airplane handling agency personnel. [/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Maintenance. [/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Coordination. [/FONT]