Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

David_e

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

I would never use them again. To say I am sick of dealing with them and their repetetive two year stand point is an understatement.

Two points:

(1) If that's their best shot at a defence that's all the encouragement you need to take them to court.

(2) You shouldn't give them the opportunity to repeat it. If you have requested that they deal with the matter within the time limit prescribed by the law and they haven't, make a claim.

Gorbar

rl8762 wrote: »

Thomsons appear confident they will win this consequently they were giving this info out to passengers waiting at Newcastle to check in at 1200 hrs that day for the 1515 flight we were told via a note posted in resort that due to pilot illness etc etc we would be delayed by about 4 hours. Their rejection letter states "your flight was delayed on its previous rotation due to the pilot being taken ill.In an attempt to minimise the impending delay an alternative aircraft and crew were sourced to operate your flight which was subsequently late arriving in Kos to operate your flight back to the uk"In fact it took them from 0945 hrs until 1930 hrs to get a plane in the air from the uk.

We had a delayed Ryanair flight from Tenerife, the reason Pilot had phoned in sick, Ryanair paid up

jeni-b_2

Hi all,

I have just sent my letter to Thomson re a flight on 14/9/08 that was delayed 15 hours. Thomson put us up in a hotel overnight due to the delay. We were told at the time that the flight couldn't leave as the staff would exceed the quota of hours they were allowed to work as they had spent time getting stranded passengers home that had booked with XL Airways, which had gone bust two days before.
I can't see what happens re compensation in this instance, but surely it is Thomsons fault? I have sent tickets, boarding passes etc (we had kept a memory box of our sons first holiday, luckily!) but the circumstances are very unusual so have no idea if I'd be entitled or not! Anyone help?

Mark2spark

rl8762 wrote: »

Return flight from Kos to Newcastle 11th July 2013 landed 3 hours 42 minutes late. The reason being at 0945 hrs UK time on the 10th a pilot became ill in Menorca before take off on the plane that would have been used to fly from Newcastle to Kos at 1515 hrs. The Menorca flight eventually landed 492 minutes late. Thomson claim EC? They had a minimum of 5 1/2 hours to find a replacement plane in the uk or a replacement pilot in Menorca. In Fact it took them over 10 hours from the time they realised they had a problem to the flight taking off from Newcastle to Kos which was a replacement plane. Should I pursue to the CAA or accept EC? Any help would be appreciated. not sure I have posted correctly apologies in advance if I have not.

Of course Thomson claim EC.
Have you read any of this thread? They will claim EC even if the stewardess's cat is ill.
Write back NBA rejecting their excuses, as prescribed in the FAQ's.

mrmajika

I claimed at the start of May 2013 for a flight delay from April 2013.

Up until today, I hadn't heard a thing regarding my claim. They phoned this morning admitting liability and offering the full €400 each for my wife and I. :j

They've confirmed that a cheque will be with me within 28 days.

For the information of anyone else it may help, the flight was on 1st May from Lanzarote to what should have been Edinburgh, but ended up being Glasgow (and 8 hours late).

Mark2spark

jeni-b wrote: »

Hi all,

I have just sent my letter to Thomson re a flight on 14/9/08 that was delayed 15 hours. Thomson put us up in a hotel overnight due to the delay. We were told at the time that the flight couldn't leave as the staff would exceed the quota of hours they were allowed to work as they had spent time getting stranded passengers home that had booked with XL Airways, which had gone bust two days before.
I can't see what happens re compensation in this instance, but surely it is Thomsons fault? I have sent tickets, boarding passes etc (we had kept a memory box of our sons first holiday, luckily!) but the circumstances are very unusual so have no idea if I'd be entitled or not! Anyone help?

Thomson made an operational decision to the detriment of your flight's punctuality.
XL going bust is nothing to do with you.
Whilst you might find the circumstances 'unusual', the law is only concerned with 'extraordinary', and therefore you have a valid claim.

jeni-b_2

Mark2spark wrote: »

Thomson made an operational decision to the detriment of your flight's punctuality.
XL going bust is nothing to do with you.
Whilst you might find the circumstances 'unusual', the law is only concerned with 'extraordinary', and therefore you have a valid claim.

Thanks for replying, I really wasn't too sure how we stood in these circumstances. Ill be interested to hear what excuse they will use regarding this!

rl8762

I am hoping others on these Kos flights may see this and join the thread.TOM 1378 and TOM 1379 they may have further information I am also hoping someone on the Menorca flight TOM1315 might be able to shed some light on the time they were aware that the flight was going to be delayed. I think I said before this flight landed at Newcastle with a 492 minute delay. Thanks to all so far for the replies and advice.

geewhiz

davidbrian55 wrote: »

agree fully, just shocked that dear thomson are going through all this. What do thomson customers think? I only hope they have lost some trade, I didn't book with them this year and unlikely to do so ever again.

and thanks to all those on here supporting these claims. You all know who you are and far too many to thank personally!

I've travelled with them 5 times in the last 6 years but didn't book with them this time after they declined my claim because it was over 2 years ago. I won't be using them next year either now!

NewtAbbo

Hi all,

There have been several references to using 'particular aircraft on a particular day' to counter a defence of knock-on effects - but Reading through 261/2004 I have only seen it mentioned in note 15 - specifically in relation to an 'air traffic management decision'.

Does this prevent it being successfully used against a weather related knock-on?

Thanks.