Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

J_B

Centipede100 wrote: »

Post in the Thomson thread only 4 below this if you don't want to be flamed...

Done

It was ... maybe ... a sort of general question, I thought

David_e

J_B wrote: »

Please don't flame me for starting a new thread

Don't want to start a slanging match but by saying that it suggests you know you shouldn't do it. So why do it?

Caz3121

As their flight was not the one that the "emergency" occured on they should be able to make a claim.
The reason may have been taken to return to Bristol rather than continue for various reasons, but if a technical fault it is often better to get back to a home base with access to engineers and spares than to go to a foreign airport with less of their own staff/parts to hand

David_e

limpit2 wrote: »

....your opinion on this reply I recently got from Thomson

Have a read of the FAQs and come back with any questions not answered there.

razorsedge

limpit2 wrote: »

....your opinion on this reply I recently got from Thomson concerning a delay of four hours we had on a flight from Paphos to Bristol last November. I wrote to them in January and got the reply last week. This is the relevant part of their letter.

'We've looked in detail at the circumstances that surround your experience and I can see from our internal airline reports that your flight was delayed as a result of the aircraft having to divert earlier on in the day, as the aircraft had experienced unforeseen technical issue in flight and the decision had to be taken to divert. This then caused a knock on effect to the schedule of your flight. As part of the EU Regulation we have to look at the root cause of the delay to determine if compensation is due under this regulation and in the case of your flight, the delay was as a direct result of an unforeseen technical issue, which is classified as Extraordinary Circumstances.
As confirmed by the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU") in the judgment on Nelson v Lufthansa and C629/10 TUI, British Airways, EasyJet and IATA v United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority, the question whether a specific delay triggers an obligation to pay a proscribed amount of compensation pursuant to Article 7 of the Regulation requires consideration as to whether the long delay is a result of extraordinary circumstances that could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. It's important to note that the "all reasonable measures" test applies to the occurrence of the Extraordinary Circumstances not the delay that may have been its effect.
Plainly speaking, a small number of passengers may be entitled to compensation for a delay that results in those passengers reaching their destination airport in excess of three hours after their ticketed arrival time. However, if the cause of the delay was not the airline's fault (i.e. the result of Extraordinary Circumstances), there is no requirement to pay that compensation.
The definition of what amounts to "Extraordinary Circumstances" is given in paragraph 14 of the preamble of the Regulation, which states:
".obligations on operating air 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. Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier."
In case of your flight, the cause of the delay was in reaction to a delay to another aircraft caused by an "unexpected flight safety shortcoming" arising midflight.
To some there is a fundamental misunderstanding around whether technical problems can constitute Extraordinary Circumstances with many believing that no technical problems can fall into that category at all. This is simply not true, as confirmed by the CJEU itself; their decision of Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia provides some clarity.
In that particular case, the passengers were due to travel on a flight between Vienna, Austria and Brindisi, Italy, via Rome. Unfortunately, five minutes before the intended departure time, the customers were told the flight had been cancelled. The reason for the cancellation was that a complex engine defect in the turbine had been discovered the day before during a routine maintenance check.
In determining whether the cause of the "unexpected flight safety shortcomings" could be held as Extraordinary Circumstances, the Court stated in paragraph 24 & 25 the following:

"24. In the light of the specific conditions in which carriage by air takes place and the degree of technological sophistication of aircraft, it must be stated that air carriers are confronted as a matter of course in the exercise of their activity with various technical problems to which the operation of those aircraft inevitably gives rise. It is moreover in order to avoid such problems and to take precautions against incidents compromising flight safety that those aircraft are subject to regular checks which are particularly strict, and which are part and parcel of the standard operating conditions of air transport undertakings. The resolution of a technical problem caused by failure to maintain an aircraft must therefore be regarded as inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier's activity.
25. Consequently, technical problems which come to light during maintenance of aircraft or on account of failure to carry out such maintenance cannot constitute, in themselves, "extraordinary circumstances? under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004."
It was therefore held that, in the event that a technical fault was found during maintenance, or ought reasonably to have been found during maintenance, the resulting cancellation may not amount to Extraordinary Circumstances.
This approach makes sense as we agree that it may not be right that a passenger ought to bear the burden of the requirement to repair a technical problem that is detected during routine maintenance. But it flows from that conclusion that a problem that arises outside of regular maintenance and which is not the result of poor maintenance can't be inherent in the operation of an air carrier and therefore will be Extraordinary Circumstances.
Maintenance of the Thomson fleet of aircraft is conducted to some of the highest standards in the world. It's another area that we take extremely seriously as it affects safety, cost and on-time performance. Our approach is to have a regime that results in a schedule of assessment, service and part replacement which is significantly better than the manufacturer's recommendations.
In the case of fault to the aircraft which delayed your flight, the technical problem occurred while the aircraft was in-flight. As the defect in question was not something that either ought to have been detected during routine maintenance or which occurred as a result of the failure of Thomson to implement a satisfactory maintenance scheme or fail to implement that scheme appropriately, the failure in-flight was entirely unexpected. Therefore, the circumstances are not of a kind which would fall outside of the definition of Extraordinary Circumstances and compensation is therefore not payable.'


Thank you.
Regards

I am itching to pick apart this letter from Thomson but don't have time right now, there is so much in there that fails the 'Attention To Detail' test. Interesting to note that part of this looks like the angle they want to take for the defence post Huzar. Maybe later over the weekend.

stevelovescuba

Hi droylie, could you please send me your court details? I am having to take them to court becos they are now ignoring me. Any help would be appreciated

Vauban

stevelovescuba wrote: »

Hi droylie, could you please send me your court details? I am having to take them to court becos they are now ignoring me. Any help would be appreciated

Oh dear ...

Skehanza68

Tom046 flight from gatwick to Sanford Orlando, just had this response from tui uk delay was caused by a false allegation against the flight crew due to operate your flight
and this response from Thomson following a health and saftey concern raised by an anonymous passenger before your flight we followed the relevant policies to ensure that the concern was investigated and resolved as soon as possible.the safety of our customers is our priority and with this in mind we needed to source a replacement crew for your flight. Not heard this excuse before but it seems to thomson at least that it is an extraordinary circumstance. Flight stats state that Thomson changed gate arrival in sanford from 14.50 to 15.38 only a delay of 48 minutes they made this decision at 09.11 We should have been giving our gate number to start boarding at 8.15.
then at 10.44 the airport change gate departure to 12.30 any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks

David_e

Skehanza68 wrote: »

any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks

How long was the delay in arriving?

J_B

David_e wrote: »

Don't want to start a slanging match

Sadly I can't just post this 'smiley' :lipsrseal
as I need to use ten characters