Flight delay compensation, US and Canadian Airlines

DTDfanBoy

Your flight departed from an EU airport and your arrival at your final destination was delayed in excess of three hours, I think you have grounds for compensation.

The Sturgeon judgment makes it very clear that it is the delay to final destination that counts. The Folkerts Judgment further clarifies the matter as this formed part of the judgment

given that the compensation in question is not conditional upon there having been a delay at departure

I wonder if you would be receiving the same advice ie you are not covered, if your connecting flight in the US was cancelled completely.

If the airline has no obligation to compensate you for a delay in such situations, there must also be no obligation to re-route passengers in line with article 8, or any obligation to provide the right to care stipulated in Article 9 :eek:

nda1976

Thank you Caz3121 and DTDfanBoy so your replies and information, much appreciated

Ryan_F_2

Hello, it's Ryan F again from Post 220:

I received today a reply from United "explaining" the reason for my cancellation. It reads:

[FONT=Arial,sans-serif]Your email has been received in our Corporate Offices. Mrs. Seeley has asked me to review your concerns and respond on her behalf.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,sans-serif]Thank you for your cooperation during the delay of your recent flight. We apologize for the inconvenience you experienced.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,sans-serif]When the customer service agent you spoke to said, "the plane was being serviced", it meant, an unexpected safety shortcoming beyond our control impacted the operation of the aircraft originally scheduled for your flight.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,sans-serif]We regret it took so long to resolve the issue and get you on your way. Although schedule reliability is a primary goal, we know you understand that the safety of our passengers and crew is our first priority.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,sans-serif]Thank you for your kind words regarding the London staff and their service when you had to be reaccomodated on other flights. [/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]Your comments are important to us and have been forwarded to senior management for internal review and action. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,sans-serif]We a[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]ppreciate your understanding and look forward to welcoming you on board a future United flight.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,sans-serif]Regards,[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,sans-serif]Mrs. Uili[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,sans-serif]C[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]orporate Customer Care [/FONT]

My reply:

Dear Mrs. Uili,

Many thanks for getting back to me so quickly, it is very much appreciated.

However, I wonder if you could please elaborate on what you mean by "an unexpected safety shortcoming"? What exactly was making the plane unsafe?

I only ask because, as a forward-thinking, global leader in the world travel industry, United Airlines really ought to be well-prepared to deal with most technical malfunctions as a matter of course.

Many thanks in advance for your time and attention; I look forward to your prompt response.

Kind regards,

Ryan F.

Vauban

What a lovely exchange. So what do you think will happen next?

Ryan_F_2

Well, I'm not too hopeful at this juncture.

According to the CAA website (sorry, my post count is too low to allow me to post links):

The list of extraordinary circumstances where airlines may not have to pay lump-sum compensation includes:

· removal of unaccompanied baggage due to a serious security concern
· bad weather that impacts on the safe operation of the flight
· bad weather that closes the airport of departure or arrival, or where the number of flights are limited by bad weather
· air traffic control restrictions
· where a passenger or crew member becomes seriously ill or dies on-board or during the flight
· where a bird hits the plane
· where a hidden manufacturing defect is discovered
· where the plane is damaged by a third party on the ground
· damage to the plane caused by a foreign object which happens during the previous flight
· any technical problems which cause a turnaround or diversion
· premature failure of technical parts with a defined lifespan
· failure of technical parts where it is impossible to predict the failure in advance
· technical problems discovered shortly before the flight where maintenance has been carried out properly
· smoke, fire or fumes on board (not caused by a failure to maintain the aircraft properly)
· employment strikes, for example air traffic control strikes
· air traffic restrictions at the airport of arrival or departure, or where there are restrictions on blocks of airspace that the plane was due to fly through
· war
· terrorism
· closure of the airport for security reasons
· hijacking of the aircraft
· bomb discoveries or bomb threats

Given the parts in bold above, I'm a bit worried about arguing over a technical fault, considering that United could use these as a get-out clause. How does one prove that a fault is indeed extraordinary?

Mark2spark

Keep going Ryan, they'll drop themselves in it before too long

photome

Just arrived in Vegas after an eventful 24 hours.
We were booked and checked in for Norwich Amsterdam JFK and then Vegas. Amsterdam departure was delayed and then a substitute plane was used and we were bumped off after queeing for 2 hours to get on, after an anxious wait we were rerouted via Seattle and had to run to catch the flight. They said the original plane had been struck by lightening. We arrived in Vegas about 2 hours after schedule arrival. Are we entitled to any compo

JPears

photome wrote: »

Just arrived in Vegas after an eventful 24 hours.
We were booked and checked in for Norwich Amsterdam JFK and then Vegas. Amsterdam departure was delayed and then a substitute plane was used and we were bumped off after queeing for 2 hours to get on, after an anxious wait we were rerouted via Seattle and had to run to catch the flight. They said the original plane had been struck by lightening. We arrived in Vegas about 2 hours after schedule arrival. Are we entitled to any compo

Yes, if others got on the plane and you didn't thats denied boarding. Very difficult to argue an EC/defence by the airline.

photome

Thanks guys I will get on the case when I get home

assscat

I'm a little confused...

I was delayed three and three-quarter hours arriving at Toronto from Heathrow in August, flying with Air Canada. At the time I was told by AC staff that the delay was caused by maintenance problems.

I sent a compensation claim to AC and received what looks like a boilerplate response:

Thank you for your email. We sincerely apologize for the disruption to your travel plans on 31 August from London Heathrow to Toronto.

We know that customers want to get to where they are going and it is easy to understand this was a disappointing experience.

We understand you are requesting compensation under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council “EU Regulations”. However, we are of the opinion that the compensation requested does not apply in this situation. This was not a flight cancellation but a flight delay. In any event, the circumstances were extraordinary which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measure had been taken. Indeed, a fault in the engine became apparent immediately prior to departure. An investigation and repair was required before the aircraft was airworthy and as such couldn't operate safely.

Although Air Canada aircraft are maintained in accordance with the required maintenance program, this unexpected flight safety shortcoming was not something that could be foreseen and there was no choice but to delay this flight.

I referred the complaint to the CAA (after all, I can't judge whether this was a case of extraordinary circumstances, and it would be very easy for AC to claim that it was, to avoid paying compensation).

Today I got this (again, boilerplate) response from the CAA:

Dear passenger,

We are writing to update you on your claim for compensation for a disrupted flight. Please accept our apologies if you have received this email previously. A number of passengers may not have received our earlier update and this email reconfirms the current status of your claim. As you may be aware, compensation for disrupted flights is subject to whether the reason for the disruption was beyond the airline’s control, known as ‘extraordinary circumstances’ and whether the airline undertook reasonable measures to avoid the consequences of the disruption.

The Civil Aviation Authority has been working with other National Enforcement Bodies across Europe to help understand what ‘extraordinary circumstances’ are in relation to flight disruptions, in light of Regulation EC 261/2004 and European case law. The results of that work have been published on the European Commission’s website:

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/passengers/air/doc/neb-extraordinary-circumstances-list.pdf

You can read more about the CAA’s role for resolving disputes about disrupted flights here: https://www.caa.co.uk/extraordinarycircumstances
We have asked airlines to reassess complaints that have been received by the CAA in light of this new guidance. We have now sent your complaint back to the airline for their reassessment and they will respond to you directly within the next eight weeks.

We have closed your complaint and are unable to enter into further correspondence on this issue as your complaint is with the airline for a reassessment. Please note that at this stage, we have not made an assessment as to whether compensation may be due on your specific claim under the Regulation.

It seems to me that the CAA haven't made any judgement on whether they think it was an extraordinary circumstance, but simply asked AC to look at the complaint again.

On the CAA web site (linked to in their email response) it says:

What is the CAA’s role in extraordinary circumstances and reasonable measures?


The CAA has a complaints handling service for when passengers cannot resolve their complaint directly with the airline.

When we are considering a complaint about a delayed or cancelled flight and the airline has claimed extraordinary circumstances, we look at the information provided by the airline and may seek further information to be considered by our legal and technical experts. For technical problems this could include technical logs. Then we decide whether, in our view, compensation is payable, or whether the circumstances which led to the delay or cancellation were outside of the airline’s control.

So shouldn't the CAA have made a judgement on whether compensation is payable, instead of just sending the complaint back to AC to reassess?

What if (as I expect) AC comes back with the same response again? Can I re-refer it back to the CAA?

This is very unsatisfactory. If the CAA had responded that in their judgement compensation wasn't payable, I'd accept their expert opinion. After all, that's why I referred it to them, because they should know whether the airline's claim of extraordinary circumstances is credible and fair.