Flight delay and cancellation compensation, KLM/AF ONLY

Vauban

Ich wrote: »

Is a burst tyre within the airline's control?

No, Ich. But is a tyre bursting a part of the normal exercise of an airlines business? And is having a replacement available (or another flight) so that it doesn't cause a three hour plus delay in their control? Those are the two tests.

marinedale

Ich wrote: »

Is a burst tyre within the airline's control?

That is a good question.

“Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation or delay of a flight is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision, unless that problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control.”

Any advice would be welcome.

Ich_2

That's one of the catch 22s! As it was a Paris there would be spares and folk to fit them, but as far as I know it takes a lot longer to change an aircraft wheel than we would expect.

Given the length of flight it would mean that the crew would be out of hours before they reached the destination so the flight cannot legally be dispatched.
Yes another aircraft could be found but to change all the catering and luggage over would take time that again impinges into crew hours.

Spare crew, whilst they do have them on standby, no airline will have full crews available as they would only normally expect 1 or 2 replacements (an AF Boeing 777 which will normally do these flights will have 2 or 3 flight crew & 12 or more cabin crew)

So again, what a legal judgement in one case expects is not really reasonable or perhaps even possible to do in real life

Vauban

Ich wrote: »

That's one of the catch 22s! As it was a Paris there would be spares and folk to fit them, but as far as I know it takes a lot longer to change an aircraft wheel than we would expect.

Given the length of flight it would mean that the crew would be out of hours before they reached the destination so the flight cannot legally be dispatched.
Yes another aircraft could be found but to change all the catering and luggage over would take time that again impinges into crew hours.

Spare crew, whilst they do have them on standby, no airline will have full crews available as they would only normally expect 1 or 2 replacements (an AF Boeing 777 which will normally do these flights will have 2 or 3 flight crew & 12 or more cabin crew)

So again, what a legal judgement in one case expects is not really reasonable or perhaps even possible to do in real life

I have a lot of sympathy with this view. Which is why I personally support the proposals to increase the delay time periods allowed before compensation kicks in.

However, the law is the law. And I think Paris, as a major hub, is a place where airlines might be expected to change a wheel, or substitute a plane or crew (or even put you on another airlines flight). The reasons they don't do this currently are financial. The passengers schedule is the least important factor. Sturgeon et al should change this mindset, and I support it.

Vauban

marinedale wrote: »

That is a good question.

“Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation or delay of a flight is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision, unless that problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control.”

Any advice would be welcome.

I'm even boring myself with my frequent quoting of the Wallentin judgement, but one more time ...

You question is directly addressed by the judgement in para 24. Read the last sentence in particular:

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.

And "beyond actual control" does not mean that the airline could have predicted or prevented the technical failure. It means that they must be able to set it right - so do everything possible to prevent a long delay once the airplane goes tech. Indeed this was the so called "third question" of the Wallentin judgement. This is long but worth reproducing in full, as it answers what is expected of the airlines in terms of effort to get to your destination on time. As you will see, the bar it sets is really, really high:

38 By its third question, the referring court is essentially asking whether it must be considered that an air carrier has taken ‘all reasonable measures’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 if it establishes that the minimum legal requirements with regard to maintenance work have been met on the aircraft the flight of which was cancelled and whether that evidence is sufficient to relieve that carrier of its obligation to pay compensation provided for by Articles 5(1)(c) and 7(1) of that regulation.

39 It must be observed that the Community legislature intended to confer exemption from the obligation to pay compensation to passengers in the event of cancellation of flights not in respect of all extraordinary circumstances, but only in respect of those which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.

40 It follows that, since not all extraordinary circumstances confer exemption, the onus is on the party seeking to rely on them to establish, in addition, that they could not on any view have been avoided by measures appropriate to the situation, that is to say by measures which, at the time those extraordinary circumstances arise, meet, inter alia, conditions which are technically and economically viable for the air carrier concerned.

41 That party must establish that, even if it had deployed all its resources in terms of staff or equipment and the financial means at its disposal, it would clearly not have been able – unless it had made intolerable sacrifices in the light of the capacities of its undertaking at the relevant time – to prevent the extraordinary circumstances with which it was confronted from leading to the cancellation of the flight.

42 It is for the referring court to ascertain whether, in the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, the air carrier concerned took measures appropriate to the situation, that is to say measures which, at the time of the extraordinary circumstances whose existence the air carrier is to establish, met, inter alia, conditions which were technically and economically viable for that carrier.

43 In view of the foregoing, the answer to the third question referred must be that the fact that an air carrier has complied with the minimum rules on maintenance of an aircraft cannot in itself suffice to establish that that carrier has taken ‘all reasonable measures’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 and, therefore, to relieve that carrier of its obligation to pay compensation provided for by Articles 5(1)(c) and 7(1) of that regulation.

Ich_2

Everyone understands that as do the airlines, but it is really an unfesable goal to expect them to achieve it!
Do you or anyone think that airlines delay passengers just for the fun of it? Or because they can?
No they do try to do the best they can within the resources available to get passengers to their destinations on time.
We see suggestions that they take an aircraft from another flight, then, when they do, we see folk who want compensation because they were on the second flight as it was delayed.
The goal to achieve what a judgement requires 100% of the time is like looking for gold at the end of a rainbow!
They impression I get is that people think they should have a standby aircraft and crew for every flight, plus a full set of spares and licensed aircraft mechanics at every destination, not going to happen. (or if it does we the customer will pay for it)
Even when they give an appropriate EC delay reason, folk are still saying take them to court anyway, thus overloading the court system and the airlines & regulators ability to deal with genuine cases. Then complaining about delayed responses!

Yes there are a lot of cases where they could do better and those are being recognised and compensation paid, but the airlines are not at fault all the time despite what folk on here seem to suggest.

Vauban

I don't know where to begin with this Ich, but I disagree with almost all of what you've written.

Ich wrote: »

Do you or anyone think that airlines delay passengers just for the fun of it? Or because they can?
No they do try to do the best they can within the resources available to get passengers to their destinations on time .

Clearly the airlines do not delay people for fun. I don't think anyone has alleged that. But they run the schedules to the limit of their delivery, so there is no redundancy when (inevitably) things go wrong. And I do not accept, I am afraid, that delayed passangers weigh heavily in airlines consideration. Their culture is to prioritise costs over the convenience of thir delayed passengers. It is because of their poor record across the industry that 261/04 was introduced.

Ich wrote: »

They impression I get is that people think they should have a standby aircraft and crew for every flight, plus a full set of spares and licensed aircraft mechanics at every destination, not going to happen. (or if it does we the customer will pay for it).

I'm not sure why you get that impression. But there should be some redundancy in operations so that they can respond speedily to delays and get people on their way. This doesn't require a back up for every flight, but it does mean having a few planes or crews, in the main hubs, ready to step into the breech. The costs to the airlines operations should not be prohibitive.

Ich wrote: »

Even when they give an appropriate EC delay reason, folk are still saying take them to court anyway, thus overloading the court system and the airlines & regulators ability to deal with genuine cases. Then complaining about delayed responses!

I haven't seen any evidence of this, Ich. Can you provide a few examples to substantiate your proposition? No, I didn't think so either.

Ich wrote: »

Yes there are a lot of cases where they could do better and those are being recognised and compensation paid, but the airlines are not at fault all the time despite what folk on here seem to suggest.

Really? I haven't seen very much evidence of this. Granted a few airlines like BA and Easyjet appear to be meeting their responsibilities. But there are many others - like Jet2 or Monarch - who clearly are not. I have seen plenty of people whose circumstances appear to qualify them for compensation being given the brush off by airlines. Indeed in some instances - such as Monarch's unilateral halving of compensation for all flights between 3 and 4 hours late - they seem to be making up their own rules, rather than following the law.

Ich_2

But there should be some redundancy in operations so that they can respond speedily to delays

Financially and practically in most cases that is not a viable option, much as how we hope it is. a long haul aircraft costs multi millions of pounds and is only financially viable if it is flying and earning revenue, not sat on the ground just in case. But what if the standbys have all been used?

But lets look at the crews. They will have airport standby crew who can fill in at very short notice, but for long haul the standby will be for particular flights. i.e. crew member (a) will be designated for flights to, say, Chicago or New York. This gives them some idea of clothing to take and how long they will be away (child care and pet care durations for one). In normal operations this would be probably two or three per flight to cover supervisor positions as well.
Face it is it fair for anyone to expect them to sit there waiting for a call not knowing where or for how long?
They will then have home standby staff available at about 90 minutes notice

Can you provide a few examples to substantiate your proposition? No, I didn't think so either.

Start on #142 on this thread for one!

or

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/59375241#Comment_59375241

and post #5570

like Jet2 or Monarch - who clearly are not.

Monarch have paid compensation!

scrivomcdivo

Further advice please folks:-

On 09/04/2013, I flew from Manchester to Paris CdG with FlyBe and then caught a connection flight to Zagreb and finally Pula, both with Croatia Airlines. I arrived at 15:00hrs but my baggage did not. The following day, my baggage arrived at 08:30hrs. I had to spend c.£40 whilst in Croatia on toiletries and 2 t-shirts just to get me through the delay in my luggage and I've written to both Croatia Airlines and FlyBe to reclaim these funds. I believe the delay sits with Croatia Airlines but I've contacted both airlines.

On the return leg of my journey, I flew from Zagreb on 13/04/2013 to Paris CdG arriving around 10:30hrs with Croatia Airlines.. I was due to get a connection flight at 13:30 from Paris to Manchester but Air France advised me they had overbooked the flight and I was on the waiting list. I attended the gate but there was "no room in the inn". After many discussions and pleading, they finally moved me onto the 18:10 flight, resulting in just short of a 5-hour delay. They also provided me with a 250Euro cheque which I credited to my bank card.

Upon arriving at Manchester, I was advised AGAIN that my bag had been mislaid - this was at 19:00hrs yesterday evening. It arrived today at 17:10hrs. Unfortunately, I was in work at 16:00hrs. I therefore had to buy a suit and shoes as all mine were in my mislaid luggage as I'd been in Croatia on business. I didn't take the pee and went to the local Asda and spent £70 on a suit and shoes.

I've emailed Air France this evening regarding reclaiming the funds for my 'essential' clothing. As I was in work, I had no option but to purchase clothes. I had spare shirts and ties at home and toiletries so had no reason to purchase these but needed shoes and suit as only have one pair of shoes and 3 suits, all of which were in luggage.

What are people's thoughts on the above? I believe my purchases were indeed proportionate and necessary.

Further to the above, I intend to write to Air France both to outline my anger over both the overbooked flight and then their failure to load my luggage on the plane. I have also read the EU legislation and Air France failed to a) ask for volunteers for the overbooked flight b) allow me to make phone calls despite me asking to use their telephone and c) provide me with food and drink whilst stuck in Paris. Therefore, I also intend to reclaim the cost of my food and drink whilst in Paris CdG as well as claim the money back for the number of calls I had to make as a result of the overbooking.

As said, I don't intend or wish to take the pee. I intend to ask for approximately £15 - £20 for the food / drink and phone calls whilst stuck in Paris. I know they've already compensated me but they should have also offered me food and drink as well as 2 phone calls as far as I interpret the legislation.

Any thoughts and sorry for rambling

smuffy

hi there looking to see if anyone can help us.....

we flew with KLM back in 2007 glasgow - amsterdam but our flight was delayed then finally cancelled, we got bused to edinburgh airport, our new flight was again delayed we finally arrived in amsterdam hours later than expected. when i called KLM after finding out recently that we could back date out compensation claim, KLM told me that they did not keep any records therefore not issue any compensation. we were a group of 6 travelling, we know that it was all booked with the one bank card but royalies are looking for £75 to do a search.

Any help would be appreciated

Thank you