Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Ryanair ONLY

JPears

MarkBargain wrote: »

Ryanair are refusing to pay compensation for my delay on the basis of a technical fault with the plane.

I read on this website that new guidelines in July 2013 (http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/passengers/air/doc/neb-extraordinary-circumstances-list.pdf) clarified that technical fault is not an 'extraordinary circumstance' for not paying delay claims.

What is the best course of action? Refer to the CAA?

Hmmm... I wonder what quango or self representing "body" came up with this list of supposed ECs? Notye it is not ENFORCABLE or BINDING

MarkBargain

Vauban wrote: »

I think you have misunderstood massively. Have you read these guidelines? Do you think they suggest technical faults are not "extraordinary circumstances"?

Well, I was going by the article on this website (http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/travel/flight-delays#appeals) which stated:

"Importantly the new guidelines mean that if there is a technical fault, in many cases airlines will no longer be able to use this as a reason to wriggle out of paying compensation for delays. "

Vauban

MarkBargain wrote: »

Well, I was going by the article on this website (http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/travel/flight-delays#appeals) which stated:

"Importantly the new guidelines mean that if there is a technical fault, in many cases airlines will no longer be able to use this as a reason to wriggle out of paying compensation for delays. "

Well take a look at the guidelines yourself and decide if you think that judgement holds water.

JPears

vauban mate, I can't quite work out which side of the argument you're coming from (its been a long long day....)
The list in the EU document, particularly notes 18 thru 27 appear, to me, to cover all the bases for most, if not all tech faults being ECs, other than that caused by neglect or poor maintenance.

Vauban

JPears wrote: »

vauban mate, I can't quite work out which side of the argument you're coming from (its been a long long day....)
The list in the EU document, particularly notes 18 thru 27 appear, to me, to cover all the bases for most, if not all tech faults being ECs, other than that caused by neglect or poor maintenance.

Sorry JP - but that's exactly my point.

That's why, when MarkBargain says he understood that these guidelines made clear tech problems weren't ECs, I suggested he take another look. He in turn said the MSE article had said the guidelines would stop airlines "wriggling out" of their responsibilities.

Quite why the MSE team would write such !!!! is beyond me - perhaps they could explain?

My views of the new guidelines are well known - and they are not the passengers' friend. Good job, then, that they have no basis in law!

MarkBargain

Anyway, guidelines or no guidelines, in the view of this forum are airlines entitled to use a technical fault with one of their planes as a reason not to pay out compensation for a long delay under EU261?

111KAB

MarkBargain wrote: »

Anyway, guidelines or no guidelines, in the view of this forum are airlines entitled to use a technical fault with one of their planes as a reason not to pay out compensation for a long delay under EU261?

Do you consider a delay over 3 hours to be a long delay? My view is that any technical problem is an ordinary event and not an extraordinary circumstance and if the resultant delay is over 3 hours then compensation should be forthcoming.

Vauban

markbargain wrote: »

anyway, guidelines or no guidelines, in the view of this forum are airlines entitled to use a technical fault with one of their planes as a reason not to pay out compensation for a long delay under eu261?

w-a-l-l-e-n-t-i-n

(f-f-s)

MarkBargain

111KAB wrote: »

Do you consider a delay over 3 hours to be a long delay? My view is that any technical problem is an ordinary event and not an extraordinary circumstance and if the resultant delay is over 3 hours then compensation should be forthcoming.

My delay was over six hours. I wrote three times including quoting the Wallentin-Hermann ruling, and received two responses both refusing to pay any compensation.

111KAB

MarkBargain wrote: »

I wrote three times ....

In my opinion you wrote two letters which were a waste of time, effort and a stamp!