Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

CobyBenson

unhappyscot wrote: »

We were delayed on a flight from Mahon (Menorca) to Glasgow. I understand flightstats can be inaccurate, but it tallies up with what I checked with someone else on the flight

Thomson first told me it couldn't be dealt with until the end of the year, they have now told me we were only 2 hours and 45 minutes delayed so we are not due anything, but this is incorrect.

The flight was meant to arrive at 9:45PM GMT
The flights actual arrival time was 12:53AM GMT

This means the flight was over 3 Hours late.

I cant post a link to flight stats, as new posters are not allowed to, but the flight number was 1549 and it was the 3rd of August 2012.

3 Hours and 8 Minutes if I am not mistaken, or am I mistaken?

For reference our holiday experience was pretty awful, from an ill planned tour to a sharp rocky place (for kids) to a slippy pool surface that everyone was falling on. Needless to say that Thomson First Choice offered nothing, not even an apology.

unhappyscot,

I've checked your flight with an independant data source (not flightstats) and the arrival time was 00:25, so the delay was less than 3 hours.

Unfortunately, I don't think you should continue with this claim.

DTDfanBoy

111KAB wrote: »

No for aviation purposes the arrival period means when the aircraft wheels hit the deck as thereafter the performance of the plane is down to ground controllers. This is the rule and applies to court cases as well.

I don't think it's as clear cut as that.

The proposed revisals to the regulation http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2013:0130:FIN:EN:PDF

define the arrival time and departure as :

(u) «time of departure» means the time when the aircraft leaves the departure

stand, pushed back or on its own power (off-block time);

(v) «time of arrival» means the time when the aircraft reaches the arrival stand and

the parking brakes are engaged (in-block time);

I would suggest that they use these times in order for the regulation to comply with the principle of equal treatment, which featured heavily in the Sturgeon Judgment.

If the landing time was used it would be possible that situations would arise where passengers departing the aircraft, at the point where "suffering an irreversible loss of time" arguably ends, 3.5hrs late would not be eligible for compensation. While at the same time passengers departing another aircraft 3.1hrs late would be eligible for compensation.

Both groups have clearly suffered an irreversible loss of time, but due to taxi times the group who suffered the larger loss would be ineligible for compensation, while the group suffering a smaller loss of time would be eligible.

Using the gate arrival times avoids this unequal treatment, which would no doubt be bought to a courts attention at some point in time. I'm sure that's why the EU courts wish to clarify the matter in the revision, rather than during a claim down the line.


I'd certainly be arguing in court that the " irreversible loss of time " which played a huge role in the Sturgeon Judgement does not stop simply because the plane touches down.

I would also bring to the courts attention that both flight performance data published by the CAA, and airline ticket times, are both based on gate timings not touchdown times. You'll also notice that all airports around the world use the term landed, when the plane lands, then arrived when the plane reaches the gate. I believe it's known as block to block timing within the industry, it's named this due to the blocks which were commonly used to chock the aircrafts wheels.

Mark2spark

I agree with that reasoning DTD.
The Reg certainly needs tweaking so that grey areas such as that are more defined.

DTDfanBoy

It certainly does, it's just a shame that they are not clarifying knock on effects, in regards to extraordinary circumstances. A lot of the airlines are stating that delays were caused by extraordinary circumstances that occurred earlier in the aircrafts flight schedule, or even in some cases occurred on another aircraft.

I'm surprised that they didn't tighten up the regulation in regards to this.

I'll also add that the Sturgeon ruling specifically mentions

" where they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier "

As far as I am aware all airline schedules are based on block to block times.

And as far as the CAA are concerned flight times are only ended when the aircraft "comes to rest at the end of the flight" I don't see how anyone could argue that arrival has taken place when touch down occurs, technically the flight is still underway and if the flight is underway, by definition, it can't have reached it's final destination.

111KAB

I agree regarding the knock on effect however once a plane has touched down the pilot is under instruction from the tower and the airline cannot be held responsible for something that is not within their control.

DTDfanBoy

I'm not implying that the airline is responsible for anything outside their control, I'm just pointing out that as far as the regulation is concerned the time that the flight lands is totally irrelevant, it is the delay at final destination which counts. If the arrival at gate exceeds the scheduled arrival time, which will always be based on arrival at gate, by three hours you are entitled to be compensated, if it doesn't you are not.

The time the plane touches down is completely irrelevant.

111KAB

DTDfanBoy wrote: »

The time the plane touches down is completely irrelevant.

Agree it is irrelevant however gate > gate will never be accepted as there are too many parties (other than the airline) who can influence the time taken before take off and after touch down over which the airline have little or no control.

JPears

111KAB wrote: »

Agree it is irrelevant however gate > gate will never be accepted as there are too many parties (other than the airline) who can influence the time taken before take off and after touch down over which the airline have little or no control.

BUT that is the time shown on your ticket ie arrival time on ticket equals gate/block time?

DTDfanBoy

But gate timings are the only ones used by all parties at present, and the revised regulation makes it abundantly clear that it is those timings which should be used.

I have a rather detailed overview of several aircraft schedules provided by Thomson, all the timings provided are gate timings. I have cross referenced everything with ACARS data, which confirms that the times given are gate times.

I can't help but think you are complicating matters by claiming that landing times are relevant.

All airlines base their scheduling block to block, if your tickets advise you that you will arrive in Singapore at 14:35 that is the time you are due at the gate, it is also the time which is used to calculate how late your flight arrives.

If there are exceptional circumstances which delay a flight after landing the airlines are entitled to use those in their defence.

As I've pointed out previously if the regulation were applied to landing times, there would be the capacity for the regulation to be applied unequally, which as the Sturgeon judgement showed, is a deal buster when it comes to EU legislation.

Please have a read through some of the information I posted earlier in this thread, I think that you telling people that landing times are what counts, and to subtract taxiing times etc etc is making the issue overly complicated for newbies

dcostin

Hi all

I have sent all details to Thomson, had the normal response around exceptional circumstances and now having made the initial contact and reading through the posts on here - hats off guys by the way, absolutley fantastic advice - I am not sure that I feel qualified enough, even with that advice, to be able to take this to court and legally argue the case. Is there a limitation on a time that this can be handed to a NWNF solicitor? I am sure I saw reference to this in a earlier post but cannot for the life of me find that post again. Pointer would be very appreciated. Thanks all.