Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

JPears

greeneyedlad wrote: »

we left 3 HOURS & 8 minutes Late
They r claiming by the time we landed it was only 2Hours 53minutes late
7 minutes off the 3 hour rule.

do u think the judge would allow that??

Judge can't- its written in there - 3hrs is 3 hrs. Maybe you could pm Coby Benson? He seems to have a more detailed source of information.

Scottish court system seems partly to blame here if you only get a defence 2 days before hearing :eek:

greeneyedlad

im looking at it this way;
according to thomson we landed 2 hours & 53 minutes late.
ONLY 7 minutes off the 3 hour rule!
I think they r lying but i cant prove it.
Im HOPING the judge will allow it.

The rest of there case is ridiculous.
They deny we booked it under that reference
They deny we checked in
They deny we were on the flight
They deny Thomson blamed Monarch
They deny Monarch blamed Thomson
They deny I gave them a 14 day warning
Thomson forget they already claimed Extraordinary Circumstances.
The EC was a technical defect
Technical defects are not ECs
The EC was not even my flight, it was the flight before
This caused a knock on effect, where no president has been set yet.

I think i might just go & c if the judge thinks its as ridiculous as I do.
What do u guys think??

greeneyedlad

JPears wrote: »

Judge can't- its written in there - 3hrs is 3 hrs. Maybe you could pm Coby Benson? He seems to have a more detailed source of information.

Scottish court system seems partly to blame here if you only get a defence 2 days before hearing :eek:

ok ill pm Coby Benson if u think he can help thanks.

Scottish court system. they dont even have 2 give me a defence before court.
The first court date is to see if it can b sorted out first.
If not then all defence & evidence will b looked at a later court date.
It is a bit crazy eh. seems like wasting court time 2 me

DTDfanBoy

I would be very careful if I were you, the judge is going to want to know why you are claiming compensation under 261/2004, do you feel comfortable telling him you are claiming as you arrived over three hours late. By your own admission you don't seem to know when you arrived.

Under no circumstances do you want to be saying to a judge that you filed this claim as you thought the time was taken at departure, that would probably be a very expensive mistake

111KAB

greeneyedlad wrote: »

Whats the spotters site u got that info from please??

http://www.antonakis.co.uk/acars.php?page=request

You can actually send a request but you have probably left it too late now to get a response. Personally I would drop it as it appears your arrival was likely to be under the 3 hour threshold.

greeneyedlad

Forum members took you at your word that you had checked your delay time and realised that it was the arrival time when your opening post stated "hello this is my first post. i have read all the faqs & 28 pages of this thread" since the FAQs are quite clear that it is the arrival time that matters.

Ok my mistake that it was the arrival time that mattered, rather than the 3 hours 8 minutes Delay time I had checked.

How does anyone check their Arrival time if Flightstats.co.uk dont show it as advised to check in the guides?
And as iv just been told even if they did show it, it wouldnt be admissible evidence in court.

I know we arrived around 2345hrs.
They are claiming 2309hrs.
Its their word against mine if I cant prove that.
There seems to be no where that I can prove that, or that a judge would accept.
Therefore u r right, Im going 2 have 2 stop my claim & ask the courts to forget it.

It seems a lot of the people iv spoken 2 on here have claims for very long delays, 24 hours etc & can prove that no bother.
Claims such as mine where we are only talking about 3-4 hours r much harder to prove.
Id love to know how they do it.
Thanks everyone & good luck .

matt2baker

greeneyedlad wrote: »

It was TOM1654
Edinburgh to Las Palmas
8/9/12
scheduled departure 4.40pm
actual departure 7.48pm
airline say scheduled arrival 8.20pm

Flight Stats & Booking form say scheduled arrival 9.20pm.
(This is wrong because the Canary Islands is the same time as GMT in the UK. NOT 1hr ahead as Mainland Spain!)

actual arrival UNKNOWN
(CAN ANYONE HELP ME FIND OUT PLEASE)
(airline say 11.09pm so ONLY 2hrs 53mins Late)

No-one has commented on the fact that the departure was in September - and you're saying that the Canaries is the same as GMT.....BUT in Sept we are on BST........and FlightStats goes by local time, not GMT or any other version of that.

if I were you, I'd stop the bus and get off, sharpish!

jenn1ewest1

WHUSteve wrote: »

thanks Jen

are they duty bound to give me that info in the shop?

if you booked in the shop there is no reason why they would not reprint your booking details

dpccrc6

I to have received my court date for 12th November and again the judge has requested mediation, I rang today and left my details - lets see if Thompson will agree??

rob_j1976

Hi all, I've read this thread through on several occasions as I was delayed by 27 3/4 hours on a return flight from Lanzarote last month.

I've written to Thomson Airways, asking them to consider a claim, as the letter we were given by them on return to Manchester stated that the reason for the length of delay was that there was a technical fault which meant the crew were over their flying hours.

I will add that today's letter gives a 3rd version of events, and actually is the least believable due to it simply not fitting into the chronology of what happened.

They rejected this claim (as expected) on the grounds that the fault fell under the Unexpected flight safety shortcoming umbrella and therefore was an extraordinary circumstance. Again,so far everything going to the script.

They were good enough to point out some of the preamble in Wallentin, but failed to reference the actual judgement of the case, which as we all know states that technical problems are not ECs, and that even if they maintain the aircraft to the manufacturers schedule, this isn't enough to say they've done all they can.

I then replied stating the obvious error of their ways, and suggesting they should reconsider their position or I will take further action.

This brings me to today's post, where there is a letter from Thomson Airways re-asserting their position. One curiosity in this communication is the reference to 'recently published draft guidelines as to what amounts to extraordinary circumstances.' Which have been published by the EC. In this draft the EC intimates that unexpected flight safety shortcomings are an example of extraordinary circumstances. Has anyone else seen this gambit? My initial thought is that these are draft guidelines in which something has been intimated, and as such they are probably no more than a wish list drawn up by the airline lobby, but I am interested in views of other.

I still intend to start the ball rolling with court proceedings because I think the high handed manner which Thomson Airways deal with people in these circumstances is a disgrace, and they could do more to show contrition at the time of the problems and in the immediate aftermath.

My final point in a rather long first post is to say thanks to all those who have offered advice, and shown the way. Thank you all.:T