Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

helenm4920

blondmark wrote: »

Your hunch that you do have a valid clam and the airline is just fobbing you off is spot on. It is quite bizarre that they should cite those particular cases because all they prove is that the original rulings (of an important case called Sturgeon) that the airlines attempted to overturn stand, and their challenge failed.

Cases that are relevant to your claim are Finnair Oyj v Timy Lassooy (C-22/11) and also Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia, but the "fundamental misunderstanding" they refer to is actually theirs, not yours.

You should give the airline 14 days' notice of the issue of proceedings, and demand that they evidence with full particularity the precise nature of the alleged "unexpected flight safety shortcoming".

They are unlikely to cooperate with you, so you should issue proceedings after the 14 days expires.

Many thanks Blondmark.
I will do that ... I will not give up.

Exxy1988

Hi,

Lots of useful info here so thanks to all for their input. Nice to see I am not alone, and I have the "standard" Thomson letter that has one single paragraph that has been changed.

In summary our delay was as follows:

• 9hr delay from Spain to UK
• Aircraft due on outbound sector from UK has a fault meaning it was could not depart the UK
• Replacement aricraft had to be sourced to fly UK - Spain then Spain UK
• The only aircraft boarded by us was the replacement one

Extraordinary circumstance has been cited as reason that compensation is not due.

The key (and only unique) paragraph in the latest letter is:

"The cause of your delay was a knock on effect on the aircraft that was scheduled to service your flight. On a previous rotation this aircraft experienced a technical issie prior to taking off following the aircraft completing its pre flight checks. Therefore as this was something that was undetectable, this is classified as extraordinary circumstance"

So, can someon clarify the following:

1. Am I correct that the precident set in Finnair Oyj v Timy Lassooy (C-22/11) means that a problem with the aircraft on earlier rotation cannot be considered as "extraordinary circumstance?

2. If this is my argument, do I write back to them telling them this or should I now simply raise court proceedings in Scotland (because thats where I live)

3. If I do write back to them, do I respond to the person who sent me the letter or send to the company secretary?

4. Should I start the letter as being "without prejudice"?

5. Should I seek infomation on the particulars of the aircraft (registration etc)?

There is also an intersting element to the standard letter. Thay talk about maintenance standards and age of the Thomson fleet, but our flight out was with Monarch under a TOM code!

Thanks in advance for any help. I thnk collectively we're getting somewhere here!

Mark2spark

That's interesting. According to what i've read here, - i'm not an expert - I would have assumed that your claim would have been against Monarch.
Yet Thomson don't fob you off with that? Hmmm.
1) it can't be considered an EC 'against your flight'. It might be an EC for the earlier flight, that's of no concern to you.
2) It's up to you if you want to engage in letter writing ping pong.
3) You only need to address to the company secretary if you are giving NBA.
4) No need.
5) If it's easily done, go ahead. But you appear to have all the info you need for a claim.

richardw

Did TOM wet lease from Monarch?

leylandsunaddict

I had a TOM package holiday. Outbound flight operated by Thomas Cook under a TOM flight number. Thomsons and the CAA have told me my claim would have to go to Thomas Cook.

Mark2spark

Exxy1988 wrote: »

There is also an intersting element to the standard letter. Thay talk about maintenance standards and age of the Thomson fleet, but our flight out was with Monarch under a TOM code!

Thanks in advance for any help. I thnk collectively we're getting somewhere here!

Perhaps someone could explain to me:

Artice 2, Definitions, (b)
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2004/l_046/l_04620040217en00010007.pdf

dartsarecool

Has anyone managed to claim compensation from Thomson for flight TOM070 Gatwick to Punta Cana on 14th March 12? The flight was delayed by 25 hours because the aircraft was unserviceable. We've been trying ever since then to get them to pay some kind of compensation for losing a full day's holiday, but to no avail. I've now started a claim under the EU flight delay compensation ruling.
Would love to hear from other fellow travellers from this flight

blondmark

Mark2spark wrote: »

Perhaps someone could explain to me:

Artice 2, Definitions, (b)
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...en00010007.pdf

Although that link doesn't lead anywhere you seem to be asking about this:

(b) "operating air carrier" means an air carrier that performs or intends to perform a flight under a contract with a passenger or on behalf of another person, legal or natural, having a contract with that passenger.

It's the airline the passenger flies with, either because the passenger booked with that airline or because that passenger booked with another party, e.g. a travel agent or another airline.

Exxy1988

blondmark wrote: »

Although that link doesn't lead anywhere you seem to be asking about this:

(b) "operating air carrier" means an air carrier that performs or intends to perform a flight under a contract with a passenger or on behalf of another person, legal or natural, having a contract with that passenger.

It's the airline the passenger flies with, either because the passenger booked with that airline or because that passenger booked with another party, e.g. a travel agent or another airline.

This was a flight booked as part of a package with Thomson, although it tends to be Monarch aircraft that runs on the route. They definately announce it as a Thomson flight and it runs under a Thomson code. I would have though that as I have a contract with Thomson they were liable.

leylandsunaddict

Exxy1988 wrote: »

This was a flight booked as part of a package with Thomson, although it tends to be Monarch aircraft that runs on the route. They definately announce it as a Thomson flight and it runs under a Thomson code. I would have though that as I have a contract with Thomson they were liable.

I thought that about my Thomsons package with a TC outbound flight, but apparently that's not the case.