Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Barbrian

Centipede100 wrote: »

Even if they have, I would hazard a guess that the airlines will, quite correctly IMO, deny compensation on the basis that the power cut which affected operations from Gatwick North were outside of their control and therefore extraordinary circumstances.

What does IMO mean?

Camaro3

Barbrian wrote: »

What does IMO mean?

In My Opinion.

Goagoer

I have read the FAQs and have followed advice given on here so thank you so far.
I first contacted Thomson in July 2013 about a flight to Goa delayed by almost 6 hours on 1st March 2008. We were given no reason for the delay.
As expected I have had the reply citing the 2 year rule. I replied giving details of how they were wrong in an NBA but have had a reply stating their position remains the same and any further correspondence will not be responded to!
I'm totally out of my depth now and daunted by the thought of court action so I contacted Bott & Co to begin NWNF action. However they will only take claims dating from November 2008 as they don't hold details of flights before that date.
Are there any other NWNF firms that people would recommend?
I'm concerned that time is fast running out for me to claim.

Sstaggy1

JPears wrote: »

Did you get no input into the right to appeal process?

The refusal to appeal letter says the defendant claims incorrect interpretation or application of para 25/26 of Wallentin, which the judge believe he applied correctly.

I had notification that they were appealing and then a letter saying they have to provide a skeleton case, which I am awaiting

Sstaggy1

The appeal basis is incorrect application of para 25/26 of Wallentin.

If I interpret my notes I took in court correctly, they were arguing that the airline should take all reasonable measure to avoid extra ordinary circumstances, and not the consequences of them.

The detail will be in their skeleton case due shortly.

Sstaggy1 wrote: »

They paid me in full by the due date, over £2200. I will check their appeal basis and mlet you know

David_e

Sstaggy1 wrote: »

The appeal basis is incorrect application of para 25/26 of Wallentin.

If I interpret my notes I took in court correctly, they were arguing that the airline should take all reasonable measure to avoid extra ordinary circumstances, and not the consequences of them.

Your point isn't Para 25 - 26, is it? That's all the "technical problems" and "not inherent" stuff.

I think what you refer to is covered in 40 - 42. The answer (to the point about reasonable measures) is it should apply to both on my reading. Para 41 appears to address directly your point - so I would hope you will be able to defend the appeal successfully.


40. It follows that, since not all extraordinary circumstances confer exemption, the onus is on the party seeking to rely on them to establish, in addition, that they could not on any view have been avoided by measures appropriate to the situation, that is to say by measures which, at the time those extraordinary circumstances arise, meet, inter alia, conditions which are technically and economically viable for the air carrier concerned.


41. That party must establish that, even if it had deployed all its resources in terms of staff or equipment and the financial means at its disposal, it would clearly not have been able – unless it had made intolerable sacrifices in the light of the capacities of its undertaking at the relevant time – to prevent the extraordinary circumstances with which it was confronted from leading to the cancellation of the flight.


42. It is for the referring court to ascertain whether, in the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, the air carrier concerned took measures appropriate to the situation, that is to say measures which, at the time of the extraordinary circumstances whose existence the air carrier is to establish, met, inter alia, conditions which were technically and economically viable for that carrier.

Vauban

If they really were appealing on the "inherent" test, they are onto a hiding to nothing, IMHO. Mind, if they paid up already I think they've probably given up - as someone else previously advised.

111KAB

bumblealong wrote: »

OK - Firstly - Many Apologies if this is in the wrong place.

Accepted - but should be on Thomson thread. Read thread first please.

David_e

bumblealong wrote: »

OK - Firstly - Many Apologies if this is in the wrong place.

If you say that, you presumably know it is.

Vauban

bumblealong wrote: »

OK - Firstly - Many Apologies if this is in the wrong place.

I followed Martin's instructions to make a claim for compensation against Thomsons. Flight statistics show that the flight was delayed, so I used the example letter to send to Thomson by email. I very quickly received a reply from them.

They have acknowledged that the flight was delayed over 3 hrs. However, they say that the delay was due to the Captain being taken ill and them having to source a new one. They then go onto say that this was an extraordinary event, and as such there is no compensation due as this is not the airline's fault.

"obligations on operating 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"

Does anyone know if this is right, or should I go back to them from a different angle?

I kindof think that it is still the airline's fault and surely they should have Business Continuity Plans in place for these scenarios. That being the case, looking at the red text above, surely this could have been avoided if they had Business Continuity Plans in place. Surely they have a responsibility to source new staff and prevent delays, or am I being naive

Thanks for reading

This should be in the Thomson thread, instead of creating your own. Did you not see it on the front page?

Pilot illness has been discussed a lot on this forum - just search for "illness" and "sickness" etc in the forum. It could be regarded as extraordinary, though you could equally claim it is inherent in running a business and that proper contingency plans should be put in place.

Persuading a judge (which is what you are likely to have to do to get any compensation) will likely depend on establishing when the pilot fell ill, where they fell ill, and how long you were delayed for.