Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Basingstoke_Betty

Centipede100 wrote: »

No you do not have to go through any of this, the mediator is not interested in legal argument only to find out if there is sufficient common ground on which to settle the case from a financial perspective. There is only a small chance that mediation will succeed and most if not all claimants on this forum who have been through mediation have not settled at this stage.

Thanks Centipede - If anything this does actually calm my nerves. BB

lesley_uk

Hi, Is it possible that people could post the background circumstances to their successful claims, just so we can get an idea of what they are actually compensating for. We were 24 hour delay in April 2011 from Sanford to Birmingham where our scheduled plane was used to take home other passengers stranded the day before after a bird strike. Weve had the standard reply of Extra Ordinary Circumstance.
Thanks in advance for any info.

lesley_uk

Centipede100 wrote: »

You can always click on the OP's name in blue to find their previous posts or carry out a "Forum Search" or search this thread.

Anyway onto your claim, did your scheduled plane carry any of the passengers home that were due to return at the same time as you or were you all delayed by 24 hours?

All of us, it flew back to Gatwick, those booked on flight only (we were a package) had to wait longer.

daisyslass

I have finally had a call from the delay team. I had asked for more information as their reason for delay did not match the reason we had been given. The information has changed and they say they have done a thorough investigation and say that the fault was with the aircraft that was to be used to save us from a delay as our original aircraft had been diverted to Barbados. I was told originally that the original aircraft had a surge in engines before departure and this was a safety issue so had to be checked out. When I said ive been lied to then I was told it might have been human error as this full investigation was the correct reason.I look forward to reading the full report which they say has been posted.

Vauban

daisyslass wrote: »

I have finally had a call from the delay team. I had asked for more information as their reason for delay did not match the reason we had been given. The information has changed and they say they have done a thorough investigation and say that the fault was with the aircraft that was to be used to save us from a delay as our original aircraft had been diverted to Barbados. I was told originally that the original aircraft had a surge in engines before departure and this was a safety issue so had to be checked out. When I said ive been lied to then I was told it might have been human error as this full investigation was the correct reason.I look forward to reading the full report which they say has been posted.

Why was your original aircraft diverted to Barbados? Did that have a technical fault too?

Actually it doesn't really matter - an engine surge is a technical fault which inherent in the operation of an airline, and therefore not extraordinary.

But you won't reason them into payment through prolonged correspondence. Write them an NBA letter, and then start proceedings.

daisyslass

The original aircraft was diverted because of a medical emergency but they couldn't find anyone in Barbados qualified to say the plane was safe to take off again (because it was heavy with fuel). So apparently they thought they would use a plane they had at Luton to save us being delayed but that plane had the surge and so delayed us for nearly seven hours.

carrock67

I have looked on companies house records and Thomson Airways have 2 County Court Judgements against them since 1st July.

I would imagine these would be Flight Delay lawsuits......

SciTech

So... After much waiting I've finally sent Thomson a NBA letter as previously had 2 year rubbish etc.

Originally requested compensation in July 2010 after both flights to and from Manchester/Rhodes were delayed over 3 hours at the end of May/beginning of June. Thomson refused to pay as they were appealing against the EU ruling, so waited until the ruling was made and as they lost resubmitted the claim. I have emails from them, in July 2010, admitting that one of the delays was due to 'crew being out of hours' but finally got a letter describing why I'm not eligible for compensation...

So... the inbound flight to Manchester (now I'm assuming this was the aircraft that would take us to Rhodes) was originally delayed due to technical defect which the aircraft could not legally fly with until it was rectified, also the third party catering company contributed to the delay after issues with catering.....as both circumstances were unforeseen and unpreventable this is classified as extra ordinary circumstances and therefore not eligible for compensation!

They then quote various cases eg Nelson v Lufthansa and C629/10 TUI and IATA v UK CAA and then Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia

In summary they say... In the case of the issue that affected your aircraft, there was an unexpected technical problem with another aircraft just prior to departure, which the pilot believed need further investigation... Etc

So, am I right in thinking the aircraft that was scheduled to take my family to Rhodes had a problem before it returned to Manchester and therefore the delay was due to 'knock-on effects' which isn't EOC?

On another note Thomson don't even mention our return flight from Rhodes on 5th June 2010, which we are also claiming for along with the flight from Manchester on 29th May 2010? I wonder why??. And no mention of crew out of hours this time!

Once 14 days up will being court proceedings,

Mark2spark

SciTech wrote: »

So... After much waiting I've finally sent Thomson a NBA letter as previously had 2 year rubbish etc.

Originally requested compensation in July 2010 after both flights to and from Manchester/Rhodes were delayed over 3 hours at the end of May/beginning of June. Thomson refused to pay as they were appealing against the EU ruling, so waited until the ruling was made and as they lost resubmitted the claim. I have emails from them, in July 2010, admitting that one of the delays was due to 'crew being out of hours' but finally got a letter describing why I'm not eligible for compensation...

So... the inbound flight to Manchester (now I'm assuming this was the aircraft that would take us to Rhodes) was originally delayed due to technical defect which the aircraft could not legally fly with until it was rectified, also the third party catering company contributed to the delay after issues with catering.....as both circumstances were unforeseen and unpreventable this is classified as extra ordinary circumstances and therefore not eligible for compensation!

They then quote various cases eg Nelson v Lufthansa and C629/10 TUI and IATA v UK CAA and then Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia

In summary they say... In the case of the issue that affected your aircraft, there was an unexpected technical problem with another aircraft just prior to departure, which the pilot believed need further investigation... Etc

So, am I right in thinking the aircraft that was scheduled to take my family to Rhodes had a problem before it returned to Manchester and therefore the delay was due to 'knock-on effects' which isn't EOC?

On another note Thomson don't even mention our return flight from Rhodes on 5th June 2010, which we are also claiming for along with the flight from Manchester on 29th May 2010? I wonder why??. And no mention of crew out of hours this time!

Once 14 days up will being court proceedings,

You need to make two separate claims.

And no, there aren't any EC's anywhere in your post

peercee

We flew from Manchester to Cancun May 2008 on a First Choice flight.
I wrote to First Choice at Wigmore House Luton with my original claim and Thomson replied.
However the return address on their envelope showed TUI UK Ltd
Can anybody tell me the name of the company I should put on the Court papers. I know the case will be thrown out if the name is wrong.