Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

rowls17

Hi, me and my girlfriend flew from Manchester to la Palma in Sept 2012. The flight was delayed originally about 2 hours. However when we were due to land the landing was aborted (at the last minute) and we diverted to Tenerife. We stayed there overnight and flew to la Palma the next day. The reason we were given was that the airport at la Palma was close due to low cloud however we were not told this until arriving in Tenerife. Are we due any compensation?

JPD_2

On a return trip from Zante to Manchester in 2010 our flight originally got delayed due to a storm on the runway. When the storm had passed and our plane landed the luggage was loaded and we presumed we were about to start boarding.
An announcement was made that the flying crew had run out of flying time and the plane was to be delayed further. In total the delay was more than 16 hours.
I am aware that we are not entitled to compensation due to weather, but what about the further delay due to the crew not being able to fly?

batman44

merry_miller wrote: »

Am I right in thinking it's pointless in me applying for compensation at the moment (as it was over two years ago.) until Thomson's appeal over the 2 year limit is heard in May ?

You can wait but it may take a while after the case as the limit set by UK law is 6 years, I cannot see any court overturning this consumer law. There will be a influx after this case.

batman44

rowls17 wrote: »

Hi, me and my girlfriend flew from Manchester to la Palma in Sept 2012. The flight was delayed originally about 2 hours. However when we were due to land the landing was aborted (at the last minute) and we diverted to Tenerife. We stayed there overnight and flew to la Palma the next day. The reason we were given was that the airport at la Palma was close due to low cloud however we were not told this until arriving in Tenerife. Are we due any compensation?

Weather is outside the airlines control, you may not have a case. Check with a NWNF company mentioned on the forums.

batman44

JPD wrote: »

On a return trip from Zante to Manchester in 2010 our flight originally got delayed due to a storm on the runway. When the storm had passed and our plane landed the luggage was loaded and we presumed we were about to start boarding.
An announcement was made that the flying crew had run out of flying time and the plane was to be delayed further. In total the delay was more than 16 hours.
I am aware that we are not entitled to compensation due to weather, but what about the further delay due to the crew not being able to fly?

You may have a case as crew out of hours is not extraordinary circumstance, airline should take all reasonable measure. Read the faqs on page 1 and the threads all the info you need is on there.

Tyzap

Kimbo999, in future please post in the dedicated "Thomson only" thread.

Read and study the FAQ's at the start of that thread and you'll soon get to grips with things. You'll probably also then come to the conclusion that Thomson are being somewhat economical with the truth.

When the airlines claim 'extraordinary circumstances' it's generally just a way of deflecting genuine claims, don't let them put you off if you feel you have a genuine claim.

ArianSandra

flower202 wrote: »

Extro circumstances.... relied solely on the Wallentine test and findings of the Huzar case (thanks Mr Huzar)

Fantastic news! Would this indicate that there is in fact a point to asking courts to refuse requests to stay based on the Huzar appeal?

Vauban

Up to you. Flower's experience was unusual: most DJs seem very keen to stay. But there's no reason to agree a stay if you think you have a strong case which doesn't rely on Huzar.

MrsChewy

Turned up at hearing, no one from Thomson's bothered to attend. I asked the judge what would have happened if I hadnt turned up and he said he would have stayed the case anyway. He said he didnt expect anyone from Thomson's to turn up as they had already written to the court. Stayed with the case to return to court after decision re Huzar case. The judge didnt know anything about the case but said it seemed the sensible thing to stay.

Waste of a days holiday and postage costs sending bundle to court and Thomson's (didnt get anything from them) just wish the courts had advised me they would have stayed the case anyway.

Vauban

MrsChewy wrote: »

Waste of a days holiday and postage costs sending bundle to court and Thomson's (didnt get anything from them) just wish the courts had advised me they would have stayed the case anyway.

How frustrating! If he was going to stay the case, he might have advised you in advance. What a waste of time - especially yours!