Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Vauban

Oh Juno you are so funny.

Three quick questions, if you will indulge me:

A) Why are you citing the Montreal Convention? How do you assess it's relationship with 261/04?

Whilst the right to damages under Montreal is extinguished if not brought within two years, why do you think that 2 years applies to 261/04?

C) How do you reconcile what you say with the ECJ's More judgement?

Juno2302

Vauban wrote: »

As a technical problem, a cracked windscreen is unlikely to be an extraordinary circumstance - though it if was damaged in flight by eg a bird strike some would argue that this is an EC. A delay however of 25 hours is difficult to reconcile with the airline's obligation to use "all its resources" to minimise the delay to your own flight. So in short, I think you have a clear case.

Flight stats is not always complete but irrelevant. If you are certain your delay is over 3 hours, the airline will confirm this from their own records.

Time for NBA and then court as necessary, I'd suggest.

WRONG!!! A cracked windscreen IS classed as EXC Circ..


The list of extraordinary circumstances where airlines may not have to pay lump-sum compensation includes:
· removal of unaccompanied baggage due to a serious security concern
· bad weather that impacts on the safe operation of the flight
· bad weather that closes the airport of departure or arrival, or where the number of flights are limited by bad weather
· air traffic control restrictions
· where a passenger or crew member becomes seriously ill or dies on-board or during the flight
· where a bird hits the plane
· where a hidden manufacturing defect is discovered
· where the plane is damaged by a third party on the ground
· damage to the plane caused by a foreign object which happens during the previous flight
· any technical problems which cause a turnaround or diversion
· premature failure of technical parts with a defined lifespan
· failure of technical parts where it is impossible to predict the failure in advance
· technical problems discovered shortly before the flight where maintenance has been carried out properly
· smoke, fire or fumes on board (not caused by a failure to maintain the aircraft properly)
· employment strikes, for example air traffic control strikes
· air traffic restrictions at the airport of arrival or departure, or where there are restrictions on blocks of airspace that the plane was due to fly through
· war
· terrorism
· closure of the airport for security reasons
· hijacking of the aircraft
· bomb discoveries or bomb threats

kenpeo

I have today received from Thompsons a copy of defence filed with the court on 5/9/2013 claiming an "unexpected technical fault in the aircraft" in Manchester caused a 5hr delay to my journey home from Florida, and therefore this is an extraordinary circumstance, I propose to carry on with my claim, would anyone please inform me what the next step is please!

Juno2302

Vauban wrote: »

Oh Juno you are so funny.

Three quick questions, if you will indulge me:

A) Why are you citing the Montreal Convention? How do you assess it's relationship with 261/04?

Whilst the right to damages under Montreal is extinguished if not brought within two years, why do you think that 2 years applies to 261/04?

C) How do you reconcile what you say with the ECJ's More judgement?

A./B/C) The EU Regulation does NOT STIPULATE A TIME FRAME IN WHICH CUSTOMERS HAVE TO CLAIM!!!!!
The Montreal Convention was set down by OUR Country - so when the EU Regulation FAILED to stipulate this timeframe we would HAVE TO REFER TO OUR OWN LAW.

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

Vauban

We do refer to our own: it's called the statute of limitation, which sets a time period of six years.

The ECJ - which has primacy in UK law - has ruled that the Montreal Convention does not apply to the provisions of 261/04. Read the More judgement, if you are genuinely interested.

However, it is clear you are simply trolling, and so I won't engage any further with you. And I encourage others to ignore your misleading posts as well.

Juno2302

I work for Thomson - I know what I'm on about.

Vauban

Juno2302 wrote: »

I work for Thomson - I know what I'm on about.

:rotfl:
:rotfl::rotfl:
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Juno2302

Where as I have had legal training on this subject, you have not.

darkwarrior

Juno2302 wrote: »

Where as I have had legal training on this subject, you have not.

I would think you would want to AVOID attempts to deceive the public into believing they have no right to claim since if the claims stop you will be out of a job copying and pasting the same response and posting it out.



Annnnnnnnnnnyway, I received a letter from Thomson today saying thanks for my further contact O_o, and restating their 2 year approach which is based on legal advice provided by a "pre-eminent aviation law QC". Considering the only contact I have had with them is to my FOI request I assume this is the response, and they just didn't read it? O_o bizarre and irritating.

But there they go, copy and pasting a response again.

zzx

Can you confirm the provenance of this list you quote please?

Juno2302 wrote: »

WRONG!!! A cracked windscreen IS classed as EXC Circ..


The list of extraordinary circumstances where airlines may not have to pay lump-sum compensation includes:
· removal of unaccompanied baggage due to a serious security concern
· bad weather that impacts on the safe operation of the flight
· bad weather that closes the airport of departure or arrival, or where the number of flights are limited by bad weather
· air traffic control restrictions
· where a passenger or crew member becomes seriously ill or dies on-board or during the flight
· where a bird hits the plane
· where a hidden manufacturing defect is discovered
· where the plane is damaged by a third party on the ground
· damage to the plane caused by a foreign object which happens during the previous flight
· any technical problems which cause a turnaround or diversion
· premature failure of technical parts with a defined lifespan
· failure of technical parts where it is impossible to predict the failure in advance
· technical problems discovered shortly before the flight where maintenance has been carried out properly
· smoke, fire or fumes on board (not caused by a failure to maintain the aircraft properly)
· employment strikes, for example air traffic control strikes
· air traffic restrictions at the airport of arrival or departure, or where there are restrictions on blocks of airspace that the plane was due to fly through
· war
· terrorism
· closure of the airport for security reasons
· hijacking of the aircraft
· bomb discoveries or bomb threats