Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

bigmama1

Well, I'm just posting this to make you feel sorry for me! Hopefully!

I have been reading Thomson's Disclosure on and off all day. I want a rest, so I thought I would share with you the amount of paper in their Disclosure as follows:

The Sturgeon Judgment .............................. 14 pages
Nelson Judgment ......................................... 9 "
More Judgment ........................................... 4 "
Axel Walz Judgment (Montreal Convention)....... 7 "
Sidu Judgment ............................................. 19 "
Regulation EC241/2004 ................................. 6 "
Stot & Hook Judgment (Disabled persons) ....... 20 "
European Low Fares Assoc. v Dept Transport? ... 20 "
H.M Revenue & Customs (Nector points & VAT)! 49 "
European Communities Act 1972 ..................... 37 "
Warsaw Convention ....................................... 13 "
Wallentin - Harmann ...................................... 6 "
CAA ............................................................. 9 "
Limitation Act 1980 ........................................ 20 "
Thomson Holidays - Flights & Conditions of
Carriage..................................................... 7 "
1st Witness Statement by Programme Delivery
Manager plus Operations & Crewing reports
(unread at present) ........................................ 36
2nd Witness Statement by Programme Delivery
Manager plus Operations & Crewing reports
(unread at present) ........................................ 16 "
____
292 "

I don't understand why some of these Disclosures are there. Some seem totally irrelevant to my claim? Maybe Thomson don't know
either!

I hope you are not crying in your beer after reading this! It's a shame I do not drink, (teetotal) as I would have been drunk by now!

Bye for now,
from Red eye.

Mark2spark

Bigmama, I know that the desire to read *everything* exists, but realistically you need to funnel it down to the crux, which is the few lines where they explain what the problem was, and *why* they wasn't able to respond in time to prevent a delay over 3 hours.
And then dissect that with counter arguments quoting the various part of the Reg and/or case histories (Wallentin etc).
Keep it short and sweet as best you can. Their aim is to also flummox the Judge with waffle. A few cutting lines from you (highlighted extracts from Regs/Cases) is what the Judge will look at.

legal_magpie

Bigmama, the most important documents on that list are the ones you haven't read yet, namely the two witness statements and the documents mentioned in them. You need to study them very carefully as they will tell you, probably for the first time, exactly what went wrong, when, where and what Thomsons tried to do about it. Read them and read them again looking for anything suspicious.

In my own case those statements disclosed for the first time that the fuel leak Thomsons relied on was caused by someone not tightening up some bolts on a hose coupling that connected the aircraft to the fuel tanker so I was ready to argue my case on the merits, especially as the statement disclosed a document which showed that this problem had happened before.

As it happened Huzar was decided a week before my hearing so Thomson caved in at trial.
Good luck and get reading
JJ

bigmama1

Don't worry I'm not going into the gory details of operations I've had!

I started reading the Operation Reports which were in my Document Disclosure recently received from Thomson.

They were very interesting although I have still to read the 2nd Witness statement.

I have now discovered that the technical fault, which there had been no explanation before, is now due to the flaps!

I seem to remember a while ago somebody had posted regarding technical fault due to the flaps?

Can somebody point me in the right direction please?

Thanks.

From Red Eyes!

greenroundthegills

Hi, would like some advice about flight delay compensation. On the 11/11/2010 my wife and i boarded Flight TOM 92 from LGW to Cancun, Mexico the flight was scheduled to take of at 09.15 am, as our plane was stuck elsewhere we had to wait for another which took of at 10.30 am. About 20 to 30 minutes into the flight we were told there was a fault with the plane and that we were being diverted to Manchester Airport, after flying round for some time to dump fuel we landed at Manchester where the emergency services checked out the plane before we disembarked, this was around 13.00 hrs. We were put up in a hotel for the night and were told at Dinner that the automatic pilot hydraulic pipe had broken and they were trying to source a new one over night. We left at 08.12 am the following morning on a different aircraft arriving in Cancun at 12.55 pm. Having tried to get compensation once and using the Small Claims option to be told that we were unsuccessful and that to take it further would cost us more money if we lost the case. Not having kept any documentation can we now still go ahead and claim again under the new ruling. We do have a receipt from the hotel we stayed at showing we arrived on the 12/11/2010. Thanks in anticipation.

Caz3121

greenroundthegills wrote: »

. Having tried to get compensation once and using the Small Claims option to be told that we were unsuccessful

On what basis/defense did Thomson win the case?

greenroundthegills

They claimed it was an unforeseen technical fault.

Vauban

If you lost your case in the small claims court you are not able to resurrect it now, unfortunately. What bad luck - if you had the hearing now, you'd have likely won post-Huzar.

JOHN_1959

I have just come back from a holiday in Florida where we ended up being delayed by nearly 20 hours.
Firstly we were held up due to a thunder storm in the orlando area.
We then could not take off as the left hand engine would not start we were told at the time that the starting motor was broke after about 4 hours on the runway we were off loaded and put in a hotel for the night.
I have a letter from thomson reason for delay
"The aircraft due to operate your flight developed a technical fault shortly before departure and despite strenuous efforts to rectify the fault quickly on this occasion it was not possible. As a result the crew exceeded their permitted working hours and were required to take a rest in cancun. The flight was operated at the earliest oppertunity the following day."
Question I ask is was the delay a technical fault that is exceptional circumstances so will be difficult to claim.
The letter states the fault developed shortly before departure so should the captain under normal checks have checked that the engines should start before boarding passengers.
Do you think the fault was sorted but the delay was due to working hours and if the latter what are the leagally permitted working hours of the flight crew.
Cancun would have been nice but we were in orlando.:rotfl:

David_e

JOHN_1959 wrote: »

I have just come back from a holiday in Florida where we ended up being delayed by nearly 20 hours.
Firstly we were held up due to a thunder storm in the orlando area.
We then could not take off as the left hand engine would not start we were told at the time that the starting motor was broke after about 4 hours on the runway we were off loaded and put in a hotel for the night.
I have a letter from thomson reason for delay
"The aircraft due to operate your flight developed a technical fault shortly before departure and despite strenuous efforts to rectify the fault quickly on this occasion it was not possible. As a result the crew exceeded their permitted working hours and were required to take a rest in cancun. The flight was operated at the earliest oppertunity the following day."
Question I ask is was the delay a technical fault that is exceptional circumstances so will be difficult to claim.
The letter states the fault developed shortly before departure so should the captain under normal checks have checked that the engines should start before boarding passengers.
Do you think the fault was sorted but the delay was due to working hours and if the latter what are the leagally permitted working hours of the flight crew.
Cancun would have been nice but we were in orlando.:rotfl:

Have a look at the thread "Flight Delay Compensation Important Info - Please check before posting"