Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Thomas Cook ONLY

McDougal44

Thanks for the suggestions!

Sorry did not see the Thomas Cook thread.

Still have the old passports which we travelled on with stamps at immigration control, thanks for the suggestion. (The stamps have the date of arrival clearly marked as well which can only help!)
The idea of contacting Thomas Cook to get hold of booking reference etc had not crossed my mind, I will try that!

DIYBaldyman

Just discovered something very interesting that may help some others.

Around the same time as our delayed flight (13th into 14th August 2015), Thomas Cook gave the same excuse (emergency door arming handle broken by a passenger) to lots of passengers on several other flights.

Flights I know of are as follows;
TCX7125 - Lanzarote to Stansted (scheduled arrival 16:35, actual 19:43;
TCX7522 - Stansted to Antalya (scheduled arrival 00:15, actual not listed);
TCX7523 - Antalya to Stansted (scheduled arrival 03:45, actual 08:40).

TCX7506 - Stansted to Dalaman (scheduled arrival 21:40, actual 02:11);
TCX7507 - Dalaman to Stansted (scheduled arrival 00:50, actual not listed, although a passenger has previously posted that the departure was delayed by 4h 35m).

The useful bit - on the additional information available on the flightstats website, all of the above flights were served by only 2 aircraft, but the additional information available on flightstats.com shows that the tail registration numbers were swapped several times between the 2 different rotation routes during the course of the day.

So in other words, they swapped 2 aircraft around between 5 different routes, all of them were delayed & all of the passengers were given the same reason (passenger broke an emergency door handle).

TCX7522/3 - tail changed from GTCDX to GTCDA @ 07:30 13-8-15
TCX7506/7 - tail changed from GTCDA to GTCDX @ 07:30 13-8-15

TCX7125 - tail changed from GTCDA to GTCDX @ 08:10 13-8-15,

TCX7522/3 - tail changed from GTCDA to GTCDX @ 15:30 13-8-15
TCX7522/3 - tail changed from GTCDA to GTCDX @ 15:30 13-8-15

TCX7506/7 - tail changed from GTCDX to GTCDA @ 07:30 13-8-15

We know (to the best of our knowledge) from being told by the cabin crew on board that the actual incident happened on TCX7125 during boarding in Lanzarote. We were told that 55 passengers had to be offloaded & they were all offered €400 to volunteer.

After just having had my own claim settled (we were on flight TCX7523) I am confident that anyone on the other flights listed above & possibly further flights after ours, also have a valid claim.

If anyone wants copies of my successful final claim letter to Thomas Cook to insert their own details into, please send me a PM with your email address & I'll send you a blank copy to fill in.

Steve.

JPears

DIYBaldyman wrote: »

Just discovered something very interesting that may help some others.
......

We know (to the best of our knowledge) from being told by the cabin crew on board that the actual incident happened on TCX7125 during boarding in Lanzarote. We were told that 55 passengers had to be offloaded & they were all offered €400 to volunteer.

.....

If anyone wants copies of my successful final claim letter to Thomas Cook to insert their own details into, please send me a PM with your email address & I'll send you a blank copy to fill in.

Steve.

I wonder if these passengers also claimed their rightful 261/2004 compensation for denied boarding, in addition to the inducement for volunteering?

DIYBaldyman

JPears wrote: »

I wonder if these passengers also claimed their rightful 261/2004 compensation for denied boarding, in addition to the inducement for volunteering?

Not just the off-loaded passengers JPears, the remaining passengers who stayed on the flight (TCX7125) also had a substantial delay - we understand that they waited on the tarmac for over 2 hours trying to arrange a repair, then had a further delay offloading passengers / luggage & waiting for a new departure slot.

In addition, all subsequent flights had 55 empty seats - I know our check-in was closed & those at the end of the queue were also denied boarding, so I can only assume 55 passengers from the other flights suffered the same fate.

Although can TC not use 'E.C.' for passengers of TCX7125 if the incident occurred on that actual flight? I didn't think so as I believe 'damage to the cabin interior caused by passengers' would be most definitely inherent in any airline's operations, but Bott & Co. weren't prepared to take it on when they thought it had happened on our flight. Maybe they reject the borderline cases or ones they think they might have to do some actual legal work on SIZE="4"][SIZE="1"]said with no cynicism at all, honest[/SIZE][/SIZE...

JPears

It would be an interesting one, because the flight still flew. Those 55 passengers were denied boarding in effect, which is even more difficult for EC to stick.

Holks

Hi there! Was anyone else delayed for 24hrs for tcx1232 on Sunday 27th March due to lightening strike?

Just had my claim rejected, sure they are pulling a fast one!

DIYBaldyman

Holks wrote: »

Hi there! Was anyone else delayed for 24hrs for tcx1232 on Sunday 27th March due to lightening strike?

Just had my claim rejected, sure they are pulling a fast one!

flightstats.com flight data website isn't showing any information relating to the delay, in fact the record hasn't yet been closed as the flight is still listed as 'en-route', although amendments were still being made to the flight information on the morning of 28 March. Same for the following flight back to Gatwick - TCX1233. However, there is another flight with the same number listed separately on Monday 28th - scheduled to depart at 11:28 but no arrival information - is this the one you were eventually put onto?

Did the flight take off on time & then have to return to Gatwick because of the strike, or did the actual lightning strike occur to the aircraft on a previous flight, thus delaying your flight?

Did the flight still go ahead with the same flight details (number etc...) or were you booked onto a different flight the following day?

I'm not 100% sure if the same applies to lightning strikes, but if it occurred to a previous flight, I'm fairly sure this would have to be viewed as a 'knock-on' delay - ie an issue on a previous flight causing a subsequent later flights to be rescheduled, in which case the airline cannot avoid their responsibility to pay compensation.

Download & read Vauban's guide;

https://dl.orangedox.com/GdfSa4xUZdZI5GJadr/Vauban%27s%20Guide%20to%20Claiming%20Flight%20Dela%20%20y%20Compensation.pdf

In particular point 4.6 - knock-on delays & meterological issues & also follow the link to previous court judgements (again, in particular the 2nd ruling of the Finnair judgement.)

If, after reading the guide, you think you have a valid claim, write a Letter Before Action to Thomas Cook & wait for their response.

TC will try & stall & put you off at every opportunity. Best advice is not to get drawn into a prolonged exchange of emails / letters with the Customer Relations team. They don't usually take a claim seriously until they receive a LBA or notice of court proceedings.

If you need any more help / advice, post your questions on here & there will always be someone able to give sound advice.

111KAB

Plus > http://www.4kbw.net/news/01022016145852-the-curse-of-the-lightning-strike---the-impact-of-evans-v-monarch-airlines-/

Tyzap

and....

https://www.flightdelays.co.uk/blog/2015/1324/lightning-strike-victory-in-riley-v-easyjet

JPears

111KAB wrote: »

Plus > http://www.4kbw.net/news/01022016145852-the-curse-of-the-lightning-strike---the-impact-of-evans-v-monarch-airlines-/

A heavily biased opinionated report methinks! Noting several times the "judge was wrong" - only in his/her opinion!
And still quoting the debunked CAA EC list!