Flight delay and cancellation compensation, KLM/AF ONLY

JPears

Have you downloaded and read through Vauban's super helpful guide. Most of your answers are in there.
You will need to send an NBA if you are considering court action.

Caz3121

aah wrote: »

Our entitlement to compensation seemed clear.

This was rejected and they responded saying they were still not liable, citing Air Traffic Control. I didnt know what they meant by this, so I googled reasons why Air Traffic control could cause a delay and only strikes were mentioned. There was no strike on this day.
I have now gone back to them saying that I require compnsation and will consider taking them to court.

ATC is not related only to strikes. It can be related to weather (winds can affect how many aircraft can land in an hour so slows everything down) Air traffic is not within the control of the airline - anyone that has joined the holding pattern at Heathrow before landing knows how frustrating this is
What do you believe the reason for the delay was from LIS to CDG? this reason is key to whether compensation is due or not...eg putting your flight details through EUClaim shows -
Unfortunately you are not entitled to compensation.
An analysis of the data for this flight shows that an extraordinary circumstance was the cause of the delay.
have you seen information to the contrary? was their a technical problem with the aircraft?

aah

thankyou - an Air France operator at LIsbon airport told us that the delay was due to overbooking of the flight coming into Lisbon. The pilot told us that further delay was due to the baggage taking time to load

IndyPete

Hi all, looking for some help on this one.

The backstory: Was due to travel from EDI to AMS a while back. The day before, AMS had thunderstorms which caused significant disruptions. As a result, "aircraft and crew were out of position" the following day which caused the cancellation (these are KLM's words in an email I received in response to a request of reimbursement of additional travel expenses). KLM has rejected my compensation claim on the grounds that the flight was cancelled as a consequence of weather disruption the previous day (again, these are KLM's words).

Now, I have found several references to knock-on effects of extraordinary circumstances not being extraordinary themselves. However, I struggle to find any relevant court rulings that I could cite in my response to KLM (only thing I have found is a ruling against Finnair which deals with being denied boarding on a rescheduled flight). So my question is, are there any court rulings that explicitly state that knock-on effects of weather disruptions are non-extraordinary?

JPears

Indy - directly from regulation 261/2004:
Preamble 14:
"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."
Your flight was not directly affected by the weather the day before.

IndyPete

Thanks, I'll make a note of that although I expect KLM's response will be that the operation of the flight was indeed incompatible with the weather conditions the previous day. Unfortunately the regulations do not explicitly state that extraordinary circumstances muct affect the flight directly. I was really hoping that there was a court ruling which explicitly considers knock-on effects and deems to be non-extraordinary but maybe there isn't one?

JPears

But the regulation does specifically state that an EC can be claimed by the airline with the flight concerned.
The meteorlogical conditions were not incompatible with the flight concerned ie yours.

IndyPete

I agree with you but I suspect KLM will not. Anyway, I have sent them a message that I do not agree with their view on the case. I expect they won't budge and that ADR will be the next step.

JPears

Have you quoted the relevant part of the regulation to them in your reply?
It matters not if they agree or disagree with the regulation, they have no choice, from a legal point of view.

IndyPete

Yes, I did although the wording of the regulations are ambiguous (in my opinion) which is why I was hoping there was a court ruling clarifying matters. Will update when I know more.