Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Mark2spark

Typical gobbledegook nonsense from Thomson who hope you will now go away. The all reasonable measures test they quote is spin. A tech issue is not an EC - read the cases that Vauban quotes.
Further, all reasonable measures includes trying to source a replacement plane, given the delay was 24 hours that clearly didn't try.
NBA time, and court in all likelyhood.

Vauban

Mark2spark wrote: »

Typical gobbledegook nonsense from Thomson who hope you will now go away. The all reasonable measures test they quote is spin. A tech issue is not an EC - read the cases that Vauban quotes.
Further, all reasonable measures includes trying to source a replacement plane, given the delay was 24 hours that clearly didn't try.
NBA time, and court in all likelyhood.

They really are cheeky chappies - no Court has said that the reasonable measures test applies only to the occurrence of the tech problem, and not the response to the subsequent delay.

I fear I am hopelessly naive, yet I am shocked by the daily evidence of these airlines deliberately misleading people. Oh, the integrity!

cymru_am_byth_2

Mark2spark wrote: »

Typical gobbledegook nonsense from Thomson who hope you will now go away. The all reasonable measures test they quote is spin. A tech issue is not an EC - read the cases that Vauban quotes.
Further, all reasonable measures includes trying to source a replacement plane, given the delay was 24 hours that clearly didn't try.
NBA time, and court in all likelyhood.

They did say at the time that they had a spare plane at the airport. However, I believe it was the lack of a replacement crew which delayed us overnight.

Is my interpretation of the Wallentin case correct in that a technical fault cannot be extraordinary circumstances if discovered during the air carrier's regular activities? Thomson have admitted the fault was discovered during routine maintenance and therefore admitted that it was discovered during their regular activities so is not extraordinary?

Hope that makes sense!

markavo1

Exxy1988 wrote: »

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?

I think you should be careful using the finnair case. The circumstances of that case were that Finnair were still relying on problems resulting from a strike two days before timy Lassooy's flight. Finnair tried relying on that strike from 2 days earlier to exempt them from making any payement of compensation to Timy Lassooys flight. The Lassooys case does say that airlines can only rely on extraordinary circumstances on issues affecting a certain aircraft on a certain day. So, if Thomson can prove that they rightfully have a claim to extraordinary circumstances on the outbound flight, I would think a court would allow them extraordinary circumstances still to apply to your flight.

Think you would be better off arguing that that the issues that the delayed the flight do not amount to extraordinary circumstances

Mark2spark

markavo1 wrote: »

...if Thomson can prove that they rightfully have a claim to extraordinary circumstances on the outbound flight, I would think a court would allow them extraordinary circumstances still to apply to your flight.

How would you interpret meteorological conditions, (an accepted EC), affecting the outbound flight, to affect the following flight?

Mark2spark

cymru_am_byth wrote: »

They did say at the time that they had a spare plane at the airport. However, I believe it was the lack of a replacement crew which delayed us overnight.

Is my interpretation of the Wallentin case correct in that a technical fault cannot be extraordinary circumstances if discovered during the air carrier's regular activities? Thomson have admitted the fault was discovered during routine maintenance and therefore admitted that it was discovered during their regular activities so is not extraordinary?

Hope that makes sense!

I don't suppose you have that in writing? :undecided

Of course not

No EC's so far in your case. Even worse that they couldn't arrange a replacement crew in 24 hours.

cymru_am_byth_2

Mark2spark wrote: »

I don't suppose you have that in writing? :undecided

Of course not

No EC's so far in your case. Even worse that they couldn't arrange a replacement crew in 24 hours.

They said in their letter:

"Unfortunately, once the delay was taken into account we needed to source a new crew which further impacted your delay"

wilt01

Wrote to caa about delayed thomson flight from reus airport july 2012 (delayed 20 hours). Received letter aback saying they couldn't assist and should address complaint to relevant national enforcement body. Also said it is upto individual NEB how they deal with complaint, may take action against airline but not seek redress for individual complaint and i may have to pursue individual claim legally to seek redress

Mark2spark

There's little point in writing to the Spanish NEB Wilt01.
The NEB will write to Thomson and ask for details, giving them 30 days to reply. Thomson won't reply, so the NEB will write back to you and say that your claim is valid as Thomson have failed to prove their defence.
And you will be no nearer to getting your money than you are today.
NBA and court is the only method that they understand.

markavo1

Mark2spark wrote: »

How would you interpret meteorological conditions, (an accepted EC), affecting the outbound flight, to affect the following flight?

I am not a legal professional, but I do have cause to deal with Courts on a daily basis, and my experience is in most civil cases, the courts will consider what can reasonably be expected of the defendant. My personal opinion would be that the Court would take each case on its own merits. If, for example, meterological conditions amounting to extraordinary circumstances affected the outbound flight from london to dominican republic, meaning the outbound flight was severely delayed, it would not be reasonable to expect an airline to have a spare plan sitting on standby in the dominican to ensure that the return flight was not delayed. Therefore, in this case I would think the Court may allow the extraordinary circumstances that applied to the outbound flight, to also apply to the inbound flight. But if you turn it around, and your flight is due to depart london, but the inbound flight from dominican is affected by meterolgical conditions, it might be reasonable to expect Thomson to have contingencies in place, in London, one of its main airports, in order to not have a knock on delay....e.g, spare plan, backup crew etc.

Don't get me wrong, I am in no way defending Thomson, because I think they are indiscriminately dismissing all claims regardless of circumstances, and I too am in the middle of instigating a claim against them. But the point I am trying to make is that in many cases, I think the Finnair ruling is a bit of a redherring for Thomson flights, especially if you are delayed on an inbound flight from a foreign country. Because, if you accept that extraordinary circumstances were to blame for the delay in the outbound flight, I think Thomson may be able to successfully rely on the same extraordinary circumstances for the inbound.

The key is to tackle their claim to exceptional circumstances, no matter whether they directly refer to your flight, or the preceeding leg of the flight. From what I have seen in this forum, most claims to exceptional circumstances that Thomsons are putting forward are nothing more than complete and utter tosh