Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Virgin Atlantic ONLY

christineanddennis

gadders wrote: »

Has anyone had any luck claiming back for Virgin flight VS002 from Newark on 3/9/2012?

I claimed and received the following:

"We regret to advise you that we have declined your claim on the grounds that the cause of the delay was caused by extraordinary circumstances which were beyond the control of Virgin Atlantic and which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.

"The aircraft encountered an unexpected technical problem prior to take-off with one of its thrust reversers. Our engineers tried to fic the problem however after further investigation replacement parts were need to be sourced in order to rectify the problem, which could not be obtained locally."

As per the examples above re: technical issues, it sounds like they were wrong to deny the claim (and I will go back and challenge them).

I was wondering if anyone had successfully claimed for this flight?

Thanks,

Mark

I received a reply very similar to yours and my delay was in 2007, I have sent a further letter to Virgin requesting they reassess my claim, as technical ( Breakdown) problems are NOT ''Extraordinary circumstances'' I await there reply with interest, after that I will go to CAA if a positive solution is not found

Vauban

christineanddennis wrote: »

I received a reply very similar to yours and my delay was in 2007, I have sent a further letter to Virgin requesting they reassess my claim, as technical ( Breakdown) problems are NOT ''Extraordinary circumstances'' I await there reply with interest, after that I will go to CAA if a positive solution is not found

When in 2007 did you take your flight? Remember you must start court proceedings before the six year anniversary of your original flight. Raising the issue with the airline or the CAA doesn't count. Don't end up "Out Of Time"!

Lil_Me_2

psarinuk wrote: »

Hi, Had a response to my NBA that Virgin would stand their ground and reject my claim. Its upto me to take it further.

So small claims court or 3rd party no-win no-fee company. Can anyone advise any good no-win no-fee company please as I think it would be less hassle and no upfront cost!
I am prepared to lose 30% compensation with no-win no-fee company (presuming 30% is correct).

I got my letter too. When I get some time in the morning I'll post it up as it could give some others an insight into their defence with regards to ECs.

Lil_Me_2

christineanddennis wrote: »

I received a reply very similar to yours and my delay was in 2007, I have sent a further letter to Virgin requesting they reassess my claim, as technical ( Breakdown) problems are NOT ''Extraordinary circumstances'' I await there reply with interest, after that I will go to CAA if a positive solution is not found

They replied to my request to review my claim by rejecting it again, I'm not bothering with the CAA!

Rocket2011

Vauban wrote: »

Virgin's explanation is utter pap - or at least, shall we say, not supported in law. But if you want your money you'll have to fight for it: read the FAQs, and all the links, if you're serious about taking this further.

Hi, sorry to trouble you but can I just clarify that my next step is to send a letter to CAA?

Many Thanks!

Lil_Me_2

OK, so my letter from Virgin says -

"The new EU ruling does provide the consumer with more clarity in respect of delays and cancellations; however, I must advise that 'extraordinary circumstances' does not relate solely to external events. Technical faults are not excluded from this ruling providing they are not inherent.

The defect on this particular flight was not 'intrinsic' to the normal maintenance process. There are a number of parts that airlines may be required to replace within a specific time-frame. Those parts are kept stocked and ready to fit, where physically possible.

Where this particular 'part' was concerned, this was not on site. There are several million components that make up an aircraft and to have all parts immediately available at all airports for all aircraft types would be an intolerable sacrifice to airlines. This constitutes an extraordinary circumstance."

Sounds like a standardised response, I suspect psarinuk got a similar one.

David_e

Lil_Me wrote: »

Sounds like a standardised response, I suspect psarinuk got a similar one.

I think that this is a customer services person who isn’t actually qualified trying to create a response that relies on the Wallentin ruling but doing so incorrectly. (I’m not suggesting deliberate intent to mislead – just inability on their part to read and understand the words in the ruling.)

The Wallentin ruling says:

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.

Your reponse from Virgin said “I must advise that 'extraordinary circumstances' does not relate solely to external events. I’m pretty sure that is not what the ruling says. Para 23 says:

“… the circumstances surrounding such an event can be characterised as ‘extraordinary’ … only if they relate to an event which, … is not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and is beyond the actual control of that carrier on account of its nature or origin”.

Your reponse from Virgin also said “Technical faults are not excluded from this ruling providing they are not inherent.”. Insofar as that has any meaning at all, that, as far as I have read, is not relevant. “Inherent” to what exactly? That word is used in Para 23 and it quite clearly means the activities including [any and all] maintenance arising from the routine carrying on of an airline business - as distinct from, say, manufaturr recalls

From what you posted about your delay, they had you ready to board a plane which presumably they regarded as ready to fly. They then determined there was a problem which needed fixing. That would in no sense be “extraordinary circumstances” if you ask me.

The response to you then mixes up various parts from the ruling by bringing in the reference to “intolerable sacrifices” which is basically seeking to use the cost exception in the ruling where they can’t successfully argue “extraordinary circumstances”. (It's one or the other, by the way; you try to rely on the "intolerable sacrifices" argument if you can't demonstrate "extraordinary circumstances".) As I said in my response #330 on page 17 of this thread, this is a useful one for airlines to throw in because passengers haven’t the necessary information or know how to determine what would or wouldn’t be possible for the airline to do if they decided to do things differently – which is effectively what the judge would be required to do if and when a case is brought. The Wallentin case concerned “a complex engine defect in the turbine” so I think it is reasonable to assume that many problems are less significant than that and so shouldn’t give the airlines a defence. I don’t suppose you will get a useful response but you could ask whether they believe the fault/issue/problem in your case was more serious than “a complex engine defect in the turbine”. If it wasn't, you seem to have a good case.

Good luck!

Lil_Me_2

David_e wrote: »

I think that this is a customer services person who isn’t actually qualified trying to create a response that relies on the Wallentin ruling but doing so incorrectly. (I’m not suggesting deliberate intent to mislead – just inability on their part to read and understand the words in the ruling.)

Thanks for taking the time to respond, you're totally right that the letter is signed by the customer communications manager! I've now submitted my claim via MCOL, so it'll cost virgin more than if they'd just settled up in the first place. Not sure my fuel pump bolts that needed to be replaced come close to a complex engine defect in the turbine haha.

David_e

Lil_Me wrote: »

Thanks for taking the time to respond, you're totally right that the letter is signed by the customer communications manager! I've now submitted my claim via MCOL, so it'll cost virgin more than if they'd just settled up in the first place. Not sure my fuel pump bolts that needed to be replaced come close to a complex engine defect in the turbine haha.

You're welcome. Can't believe they would argue that keeping a few spare bolts in stock would be an "intolerable sacrifice" in commercial terms!

In 2009, I had about 5 exchanges of correspondence over a 23 hour Manchester to Orlando delay. I let it go at the time - which is what they rely on. I need to pick it up again so grateful to all who share their experiences on this site.

Mark2spark

Lil_Me wrote: »

OK, so my letter from Virgin says -

"The new EU ruling does provide the consumer with more clarity in respect of delays and cancellations; however, I must advise that 'extraordinary circumstances' does not relate solely to external events. Technical faults are not excluded from this ruling providing they are not inherent.

The defect on this particular flight was not 'intrinsic' to the normal maintenance process. There are a number of parts that airlines may be required to replace within a specific time-frame. Those parts are kept stocked and ready to fit, where physically possible.

Where this particular 'part' was concerned, this was not on site. There are several million components that make up an aircraft and to have all parts immediately available at all airports for all aircraft types would be an intolerable sacrifice to airlines. This constitutes an extraordinary circumstance."

Sounds like a standardised response, I suspect psarinuk got a similar one.

They have a point. Tech issues certainly can be EC's, - IF THE MANUFACTURER RECALLS THE AIRCRAFT TYPE!
Aside from that they are clutching at straws.
Glad to hear that you have lodged MCOL.
Best wishes.