Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

111KAB

dreamergirl32 wrote: »

In the original denying compensation reply they stated the fault was with a different part than they have stated in their defence to my court claim.

Where do I stand on this? Surely they have given wrong information in one of them and to research whether this is part of daily checks I need to know which one.

As it appears you are on your way to Court just keep copies, include in your statement to show the Judge Thomson had not got a clue what was wrong with their plane. If they have not got a clue what chance have you got?
I'm sure if I owned a multi-million bit of equipment that went wrong and I was having to pay out compensation I would want to know what the problem was that caused the delay.

dreamergirl32 wrote: »

Just about to complete my allocation questionnaire which states I should contact Thomson to discuss with them. Another pricey phone call for me then!!...

Unusual for the suggestion to be made to 'phone the airline and indeed I wouldn't as you will have no record of any conversation should the matter go to Court. Best to email or snail mail them so you have something to show the Judge if necessary.

laticsforlife

I have just had my defence bundle from Thomson and I am filled with so many questions I don't know where to start, and have 12 days until Court.

Ill try and break this down,

They now say that our flight was actually a knock on effect from 3 flights earlier, and a day earlier. But importantly, I cannot actually find the flights they say cause the delay, so can anyone clarify the following;

They say that on 05 Sep 08 they should have flown a B737-800 (G-FDZA) Man-Gro (Girona), and return, then operating flight TOM2139 to Antalya @ 18.25 on 06 Sep 08 which should have then brought us home on TOM2140 on 06 Sep 08.

FLIGHTSTATS says they don't even run a flight to Girona on the Friday and instead it was on Sat 06 Sep, and was 235 mins late, with the return TOM5572 arriving 180 mins late.

Now if that is right then it could be that it should have connected to Antalya as its proper arrival time back in Manchester from Girona was about 1pm so easily had enough time to turn around and fly at 18:25pm.

BUT, if this is the case, how come it didn't come out to us until 22:25 & was actually supposedly a rescue aircraft (see lower down).

In other words, if this whole timeline is correct, I would have been expecting about a 3hr 30min delay that with a good turnaround might have beaten the 3hr de-minimus.

Now also in the evidence is their operational report for the day that says some conflicting info that I am struggling to clear up.

It says that two of their B767's were used to cover the supposed lightning strike that hit the ZA plane (our plane), one on a scheduled flight from LGW-REU that according to the report was operated by G-BYAA on flight TOM1463, which as far as I can tell would conflict with ZA operating our flight as it would have been on this route.

Then lower down in the report plane G-OBYJ operated both MAN-AYT and our return (no dispute), but it says that this plane was delayed 9:40hrs due to an a/c slide change required AND was an upgrade from plane ZA due to lightning.

I can't see how that can be right, plane ZA can't have been meant to operate both those flights as they conflict?

Also the rescue aircraft was supposedly flown from Cancun to Birmingham and then I guess up to manchester to run TOM2139 to us delayed by 09:43mins, but they say this was the only aircraft available, whereas I think the Girona flight was available albeit 180 mins late.

Is there somewhere where I can see exactly which aircraft operated each of these flights so I can see where Thomson are telling porkies (again). Also can I see what was originally planned?

To summarise these are,

TOM1463 LGW-REU on 06/09/08
TOM1674 CUN-BHX on 05/09/08
TOM5571 MAN-GRO on 06/09/08
TOM5572 GRO-MAN on 06/09/08
TOM1684 BJV-MAN on 05/09/08 ( the repair schedule lists this).

I guess if this is not possible I'll just have to ask the witness, as its certainly not clear which aircraft was the problem.

OMG I've just realised the length of this post and I've barely touched the surface of the BS in their defence.

Like do I even need to be so concerned over the above when it was three flights earlier?

Also they say that the lightning strike was "an act of god" and not inherent in the airlines operation, yet we know these happen a lot to aircraft so one of my arguments was it is very inherent.

bazaar_2

lolly81 wrote: »

I'm in the exact same boat. I've sent them a SAR to get proof that I was on the flight (as I don't have boarding cards) and a FOI request to establish what 'technical problems' caused the delay. I'm trying to avoid any surprises in court. So far they're responded to the SAR but their records apparently only go back to 2010, so they have have sent me no evidence of my booking. Still waiting on the FOI request.. Amusingly in the SAR covering letter they put completely the wrong name (wrong sex even). Just shows how sloppy they are!

no need to pay a tenner for info, put your NBA in, Then make your claim. Once you get your allocation questionare ( meaning they have defended) you slap in a CPR 18 request and force them to give you the information along with a very nice Statement of truth.

bazaar_2

dreamergirl32 wrote: »

I have just been reading through my piles of documentation for flight claims I have from Thomson...
In the original denying compensation reply they stated the fault was with a different part than they have stated in their defence to my court claim.

Where do I stand on this? Surely they have given wrong information in one of them and to research whether this is part of daily checks I need to know which one.

Just about to complete my allocation questionnaire which states I should contact Thomson to discuss with them. Another pricey phone call for me then!!...

Ideal for a CPR 18 move against them to flush out whether they want to rely on lieing at court.

Vauban

laticsforlife wrote: »

Like do I even need to be so concerned over the above when it was three flights earlier?

Also they say that the lightning strike was "an act of god" and not inherent in the airlines operation, yet we know these happen a lot to aircraft so one of my arguments was it is very inherent.

Do you need to get lost in their labyrinth of previous flights? The regulations are clear that ECs can only apply to a "particular aircraft on a particular day" - and the airline is admitting that this is a fault three flights and a whole previous day before yours. And uf lightening is a meteorological condition then the regs are even mire specific on that.

But what should really do for the airline is the third question of the Wallentin judgement. How can they credibly argue that they used all their resources to minimise the delay when they had so much time and notice but failed to do so?

dreamergirl32

111KAB wrote: »

As it appears you are on your way to Court just keep copies, include in your statement to show the Judge Thomson had not got a clue what was wrong with their plane. If they have not got a clue what chance have you got?
I'm sure if I owned a multi-million bit of equipment that went wrong and I was having to pay out compensation I would want to know what the problem was that caused the delay.




Unusual for the suggestion to be made to 'phone the airline and indeed I wouldn't as you will have no record of any conversation should the matter go to Court. Best to email or snail mail them so you have something to show the Judge if necessary.

I am a bit unsure about phoning as like you say there is no record of conversation, I may just send a letter stating what I have suggested on allocation questionnaire. We have ticked the mediation box, no idea how it works but guessed it looks better to have made every attempt to settle out of court. Guarantee it won't get us anyway but hey ho...

Vauban

You don't need to phone the airline. It is good practice to agree allocation with the other side before it goes to the judge. But in this instance you will both agree that the small claims track is appropriate. So all you need to do is to send them a copy of your questionnaire when you send it off to the court.

Camaro3

"The regulations are clear that ECs can only apply to a "particular aircraft on a particular day"
Just noticed this post from Vauban. Our flight was supposed to be 7:00pm from Alicante. The aircraft had an engine fault at East Midlands at 6:00am. Could Thomson use EC's in our case as it's on the same day?

joolywooly

bazaar wrote: »

Ideal for a CPR 18 move against them to flush out whether they want to rely on lieing at court.

Hi - this is the first time I've seen reference to a CPR 18 in this thread (although I could well have missed it with so many posts.) I've done a search in the forums and have found bits of information, have also Googled it and found more but would still like some clarification if possible! My flight was 6 years ago, I started court action via MCOL within the time period and am awaiting a court date (well actually am waiting for the court to reconsider the claim having initially thrown it out as being time barred but that's another story.) At what point can you use a CPR18 - does it have to be before you start a court claim or could I go down that route now? I've already applied for SAR but would like clarification from Thomson on the technical reasons for the delay (they are just saying one of the engines failed.) Many thanks!

dreamergirl32

I checked the details of my flights back on FlightStats, one of the flights ended up with a different flight number than given on our tickets...

What difference does this make?

Are FlightStats figures accurate?