Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

ruthiec1972

What does this mean? And how do I find out?

Thanks

Vauban

ruthiec1972 wrote: »

What does this mean? And how do I find out?

Thanks

It means that once you have applied to have your court case allocated to the small claims track, you cannot use the provisions of CPR18 to request more information.

To be honest, unless you are well versed in legal process I'm not sure I would complicate a claim by making CPR18 requests. But perhaps others would have a different view.

ruthiec1972

We haven't started the small claims process yet. Just letting Thomson know in our 3rd and final letter that this is our next course of action (bypassing the CAA as advised by the good people on here) if they don't pay up, not feeling so confidant there. I've send the 3rd letter today so will consider the CPR18 request and send as a completely seperate letter from the one going today. Thanks so much for your help. Husband is so much better at all the lingo and jargon but doesn't get a chance during the day to look on here.

matt2baker

Vauban wrote: »

I agree go straight to court, given the CAA's uselessness.

In your witness statement, you should note what you were told by the pilot. You should also request an "event print out" of the incident: effectively an engineer's log of exactly when the fault was reported and when they responded. The airline will have to produce this in court - and if they've made a mistake they are likely to want to settle before it goes before a judge.

At what stage in the legal proceedings should an "event printout" be requested?

matt2baker

bazaar wrote: »

as long as your claim is not allocated to a track, then file a CPR 18 with them, requesting all the evidence. Ill put a draft up sometime soon, but use this and make sure you insist on a statement of truth from the airline,

How and when do you "insist on a statement of truth" in the legal proceedings?

Littlemonkey500

I've just received this incredibly long reply from Thomson (was impressed it has taken less than a week to get back to me). I think it's still worth pursuing and will issue an NBA but wanted to share on here in case anyone feels that I'm wasting my time.





> Thank you for your correspondence regarding your Thomson flight.
>
> Here at Thomson Airways, we are committed to on-time performance across our flying programme. It sounds trite, but doing everything we reasonably can to get our aircraft to their destinations, and you on holiday, safely and on time is really important to us.
>
> In terms of on-time performance, for the past few years Thomson Airways has consistently been one of the best performing airlines in the UK and we work hard to maintain the title of most on-time charter airline.
>
> Delays are always a real disappointment for us, not only in respect of the effect that they have on passenger enjoyment and comfort, but also there is a real financial cost to us in circumstances which are almost always not our fault. That cost makes offering the best value fares and holidays more of a challenge.
>
> Very occasionally, though, and despite our very best efforts to prevent delays they can occur and we are truly sorry that your flight was delayed in the way that you have described.
>
> In a limited number of circumstances Regulation 261/2004 of the European Union ("the Regulation") now entitles some affected customers to a payment when their flight is delayed over three hours on arrival.
>
> Now that we've received your correspondence, we've looked in detail at the circumstances that surround your experience. So let's look at the specific cause of your delay.
>
> The cause of your delay was due to a reactionary. The aircraft that was scheduled to service your flight had a cracked windscreen on arrival to Gatwick; this needed essential repairing which caused the delay to your flight as an alternative aircraft was arranged to fly to Cancun and had a knock on effect to your flight. Unfortunately, on this aircraft the escape slide pack became unattached and landed on the catering truck this delay meant the crew no longer had the hours to operate the flight. As part of the EU Regulation we have to look at the root cause of the delay to determine if compensation is due and in this instance, as the root cause of your delay was due to the cracked windscreen that wasn't the result of poor maintenance or something that could have been foreseen, compensation is not due.
>
> As confirmed by the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU") in the judgment on Nelson v Lufthansa and C629/10 TUI, British Airways, EasyJet and IATA v United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority, the question whether a specific delay triggers an obligation to pay a proscribed amount of compensation pursuant to Article 7 of the Regulation requires consideration as to whether the long delay is a result of extraordinary circumstances that could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. It's important to note that the "all reasonable measures" test applies to the occurrence of the Extraordinary Circumstances not the delay that may have been its effect.
>
> Plainly speaking, a small number of passengers may be entitled to compensation for a delay that results in those passengers reaching their destination airport in excess of three hours after their ticketed arrival time. However, if the cause of the delay was not the airline's fault (i.e. the result of Extraordinary Circumstances), there is no requirement to pay that compensation.
>
> The definition of what amounts to "Extraordinary Circumstances" is given in paragraph 14 of the preamble of the Regulation, which states:
>
> ".obligations on operating air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier."
>
> In case of your flight, the cause of the delay was in reaction to a delay to another aircraft caused by an "unexpected flight safety shortcoming" arising midflight.
>
> To some there is a fundamental misunderstanding around whether technical problems can constitute Extraordinary Circumstances with many believing that no technical problems can fall into that category at all. This is simply not true, as confirmed by the CJEU itself; their decision of Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia provides some clarity.
>
> In that particular case, the passengers were due to travel on a flight between Vienna, Austria and Brindisi, Italy, via Rome. Unfortunately, five minutes before the intended departure time, the customers were told the flight had been cancelled. The reason for the cancellation was that a complex engine defect in the turbine had been discovered the day before during a routine maintenance check.
>
> In determining whether the cause of the "unexpected flight safety shortcomings" could be held as Extraordinary Circumstances, the Court stated in paragraph 24 & 25 the following:
>
>
> "24. In the light of the specific conditions in which carriage by air takes place and the degree of technological sophistication of aircraft, it must be stated that air carriers are confronted as a matter of course in the exercise of their activity with various technical problems to which the operation of those aircraft inevitably gives rise. It is moreover in order to avoid such problems and to take precautions against incidents compromising flight safety that those aircraft are subject to regular checks which are particularly strict, and which are part and parcel of the standard operating conditions of air transport undertakings. The resolution of a technical problem caused by failure to maintain an aircraft must therefore be regarded as inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier's activity.
>
> 25. Consequently, technical problems which come to light during maintenance of aircraft or on account of failure to carry out such maintenance cannot constitute, in themselves, "extraordinary circumstances? under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004."
> It was therefore held that, in the event that a technical fault was found during maintenance, or ought reasonably to have been found during maintenance, the resulting cancellation may not amount to Extraordinary Circumstances.
>
> This approach makes sense as we agree that it may not be right that a passenger ought to bear the burden of the requirement to repair a technical problem that is detected during routine maintenance. But it flows from that conclusion that a problem that arises outside of regular maintenance and which is not the result of poor maintenance can't be inherent in the operation of an air carrier and therefore will be Extraordinary Circumstances.
>
> Maintenance of the Thomson fleet of aircraft is conducted to some of the highest standards in the world. It's another area that we take extremely seriously as it affects safety, cost and on-time performance. Our approach is to have a regime that results in a schedule of assessment, service and part replacement which is significantly better than the manufacturer's recommendations.
>
> In the case of fault to the aircraft which delayed your flight, the technical problem occurred while the aircraft was in-flight. As the defect in question was not something that either ought to have been detected during routine maintenance or which occurred as a result of the failure of Thomson to implement a satisfactory maintenance scheme or fail to implement that scheme appropriately, the failure in-flight was entirely unexpected. Therefore, the circumstances are not of a kind which would fall outside of the definition of Extraordinary Circumstances and compensation is therefore not payable.
>
>
> At Thomson Airways we really value our ability to meet customer expectations. We already invest significantly in operational initiatives, engineering excellence and having a modern fleet; they all help to keep the frequency and duration of delays to an absolute minimum.
>
> Observing the purpose and spirit of the Regulation and doing so while continuing to deliver real value to our customers is a challenge that can only be met by applying the rules robustly and not making payments where the delay is not our fault. Were we not to apply the rules in the way that we must, prices would need to rise for you and all other customers.
>
> Thank you for taking the time to contact us. We sincerely hope, and are doing all we reasonably can to ensure, that your future flights with Thomson Airways arrive on-time.


Any thoughts?

Vauban

I think this is utter !!!!.

JPears

Vauban wrote: »

I think this is utter !!!!.

Agreed, Thomson Twaddle - carefully worded, dare I even say - specious ( to a degree)

Vauban

JPears wrote: »

Agreed, Thomson Twaddle - carefully worded, dare I even say - specious ( to a degree)

Interestingly, the phrase "Thomson's specious twaddle" is an anagram for "desperate defence fails to convince" - especially if you add some other letters (and take a few others away).

Gorbar

Littlemonkey500 wrote: »

I've just received this incredibly long reply from Thomson (was impressed it has taken less than a week to get back to me). I think it's still worth pursuing and will issue an NBA but wanted to share on here in case anyone feels that I'm wasting my time.





> Thank you for your correspondence regarding your Thomson flight.
>
> Here at Thomson Airways, we are committed to on-time performance across our flying programme. It sounds trite, but doing everything we reasonably can to get our aircraft to their destinations, and you on holiday, safely and on time is really important to us.
>
> In terms of on-time performance, for the past few years Thomson Airways has consistently been one of the best performing airlines in the UK and we work hard to maintain the title of most on-time charter airline.
>
> Delays are always a real disappointment for us, not only in respect of the effect that they have on passenger enjoyment and comfort, but also there is a real financial cost to us in circumstances which are almost always not our fault. That cost makes offering the best value fares and holidays more of a challenge.
>
> Very occasionally, though, and despite our very best efforts to prevent delays they can occur and we are truly sorry that your flight was delayed in the way that you have described.
>
> In a limited number of circumstances Regulation 261/2004 of the European Union ("the Regulation") now entitles some affected customers to a payment when their flight is delayed over three hours on arrival.
>
> Now that we've received your correspondence, we've looked in detail at the circumstances that surround your experience. So let's look at the specific cause of your delay.
>
> The cause of your delay was due to a reactionary. The aircraft that was scheduled to service your flight had a cracked windscreen on arrival to Gatwick; this needed essential repairing which caused the delay to your flight as an alternative aircraft was arranged to fly to Cancun and had a knock on effect to your flight. Unfortunately, on this aircraft the escape slide pack became unattached and landed on the catering truck this delay meant the crew no longer had the hours to operate the flight. As part of the EU Regulation we have to look at the root cause of the delay to determine if compensation is due and in this instance, as the root cause of your delay was due to the cracked windscreen that wasn't the result of poor maintenance or something that could have been foreseen, compensation is not due.
>
> As confirmed by the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU") in the judgment on Nelson v Lufthansa and C629/10 TUI, British Airways, EasyJet and IATA v United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority, the question whether a specific delay triggers an obligation to pay a proscribed amount of compensation pursuant to Article 7 of the Regulation requires consideration as to whether the long delay is a result of extraordinary circumstances that could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. It's important to note that the "all reasonable measures" test applies to the occurrence of the Extraordinary Circumstances not the delay that may have been its effect.
>
> Plainly speaking, a small number of passengers may be entitled to compensation for a delay that results in those passengers reaching their destination airport in excess of three hours after their ticketed arrival time. However, if the cause of the delay was not the airline's fault (i.e. the result of Extraordinary Circumstances), there is no requirement to pay that compensation.
>
> The definition of what amounts to "Extraordinary Circumstances" is given in paragraph 14 of the preamble of the Regulation, which states:
>
> ".obligations on operating air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier."
>
> In case of your flight, the cause of the delay was in reaction to a delay to another aircraft caused by an "unexpected flight safety shortcoming" arising midflight.
>
> To some there is a fundamental misunderstanding around whether technical problems can constitute Extraordinary Circumstances with many believing that no technical problems can fall into that category at all. This is simply not true, as confirmed by the CJEU itself; their decision of Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia provides some clarity.
>
> In that particular case, the passengers were due to travel on a flight between Vienna, Austria and Brindisi, Italy, via Rome. Unfortunately, five minutes before the intended departure time, the customers were told the flight had been cancelled. The reason for the cancellation was that a complex engine defect in the turbine had been discovered the day before during a routine maintenance check.
>
> In determining whether the cause of the "unexpected flight safety shortcomings" could be held as Extraordinary Circumstances, the Court stated in paragraph 24 & 25 the following:
>
>
> "24. In the light of the specific conditions in which carriage by air takes place and the degree of technological sophistication of aircraft, it must be stated that air carriers are confronted as a matter of course in the exercise of their activity with various technical problems to which the operation of those aircraft inevitably gives rise. It is moreover in order to avoid such problems and to take precautions against incidents compromising flight safety that those aircraft are subject to regular checks which are particularly strict, and which are part and parcel of the standard operating conditions of air transport undertakings. The resolution of a technical problem caused by failure to maintain an aircraft must therefore be regarded as inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier's activity.
>
> 25. Consequently, technical problems which come to light during maintenance of aircraft or on account of failure to carry out such maintenance cannot constitute, in themselves, "extraordinary circumstances? under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004."
> It was therefore held that, in the event that a technical fault was found during maintenance, or ought reasonably to have been found during maintenance, the resulting cancellation may not amount to Extraordinary Circumstances.
>
> This approach makes sense as we agree that it may not be right that a passenger ought to bear the burden of the requirement to repair a technical problem that is detected during routine maintenance. But it flows from that conclusion that a problem that arises outside of regular maintenance and which is not the result of poor maintenance can't be inherent in the operation of an air carrier and therefore will be Extraordinary Circumstances.
>
> Maintenance of the Thomson fleet of aircraft is conducted to some of the highest standards in the world. It's another area that we take extremely seriously as it affects safety, cost and on-time performance. Our approach is to have a regime that results in a schedule of assessment, service and part replacement which is significantly better than the manufacturer's recommendations.
>
> In the case of fault to the aircraft which delayed your flight, the technical problem occurred while the aircraft was in-flight. As the defect in question was not something that either ought to have been detected during routine maintenance or which occurred as a result of the failure of Thomson to implement a satisfactory maintenance scheme or fail to implement that scheme appropriately, the failure in-flight was entirely unexpected. Therefore, the circumstances are not of a kind which would fall outside of the definition of Extraordinary Circumstances and compensation is therefore not payable.
>
>
> At Thomson Airways we really value our ability to meet customer expectations. We already invest significantly in operational initiatives, engineering excellence and having a modern fleet; they all help to keep the frequency and duration of delays to an absolute minimum.
>
> Observing the purpose and spirit of the Regulation and doing so while continuing to deliver real value to our customers is a challenge that can only be met by applying the rules robustly and not making payments where the delay is not our fault. Were we not to apply the rules in the way that we must, prices would need to rise for you and all other customers.
>
> Thank you for taking the time to contact us. We sincerely hope, and are doing all we reasonably can to ensure, that your future flights with Thomson Airways arrive on-time.


Any thoughts?

It appears, from reading most posts that nearly all Thomaon delays are knock on effects. I thought these could not be called EC . Also there staff appear to be always running out of time!!!!