Flight delay compensation, all other non-EU airlines

philly7445

Thanks Vauban, well I suppose I should just write my letter and try my luck then. I will keep the MSE community informed of my progress.
Thank you everyone that took the time to read my post and to those that responded.

Ich_2

Interestingly Philly7445's case I think is different, the flight did depart on time but had to turn round following an engine failure (this probably meant that under ETOPS rules, if it was a twin engine aircraft, the flight was not permitted to continue nor would it have actually been capable of completing the flight on one engine anyway)
Now in some ways Wallentien does not apply as the flight did take off, it was not delayed by a fault found the previous day.

Looking at Sturgeon in the pre-amble it states: -

Article 2 of Regulation No 261/2004, headed ‘Definitions’, provides: ‘For the purposes of this Regulation:
…
(l) “cancellation” means the non-operation of a flight which was previously planned and on which at least one place was reserved.’

and

A flight is delayed for the purposes of Article 6 of that regulation if it is operated in accordance with the original planningand its actual departure time is later than the scheduled departure time, whilst, according to Article 2(l) of that regulation, flight cancellation is the result of non-operation of a flight which was previously planned.

Now part of the "previously planned" is the flight number and the date the flight was planned. (Take BA for instance they use the same flight number for flights on different days, the ony difference is the date changes i.e. BA2262 on 18/3/2014 is a different flight to BA2262 on 19/3/2014. Now BA use the flight number as seen by passengers as the ATC flight number which a lot of tracking softwear follows. This means if there is a long delay whilst the flight number the passengers see may not change or have an A or B added after it, the ATC flight number will be totally different.
Ryanair uses a different ATC flight number to the passenger flight number, this to avoid possible confusion with similar flight numbers once in the air)
So in this case the flight was dispatched as planned, and an interpretation of the above could be that cancellation relates to the non-dispatch of the flight.

There is no doubt that the passenger was delayed and I do not wish to go into cause. To me this is one of the "holes" in a politically driven bit of legislation!!
Though this is an obvious no win for the airline, the fault occurs 2 hours into the flight. With the 3 hour time limit they have absolutely no chance of using resources to correct the situation.

One thing to bear in mind, that pilots among other things are paid to say NO, if there are any safety or legal reasons affecting the flight. They do not consider commercial issues at all. (airline accident history shows at least one accident where commercial issues were put first, resulting in the deaths of all on-board)

Edited to add that I realise the concept of reasonable does not exist and the "airlines must pay and have no excuses" rules from the regulars will apply

Ich_2

Thanks for that clarification, but I think you may have missed part of my point, this is one of those cases that there is little option to correct the situation because of the time limits already in place.

Ich_2

That there may be little option to correct the situation due to the time limits in place doesn't really enter the equation in terms of the Reg.

Exactly!!!!!!

This is, surely, civil law that generally gives the "offender" opportunity to right the situation (even criminal law like the HASW Act does, with a graduated approach to enforcement), yet, interpretations in courts, based on specific circumstances and on here and other places seem to think that is fair reasonable and acceptable.

On here the mantra is "it's the law - tough" make them pay, take them to court, ignore the NEBs they are rubbish and biased there are no such things a ECs if it breaks it's their fault. I'm damn sure if you were put in the same position as an "offender" with absolutely no out in certain circumstances you'd be on this forum shouting "Unfair"
Or perhaps based on this case law SOGA should be repealed, or guarantees made invalid

The EU civil servants and the aviation authorities tried to make a first attempt to make some sense of it (though they do have the absolute right to issue an approved "Code of Practice" or group of regulations which I understand in some circumstances can over-ride legal decisions, not absolutely sure but most EEC laws have them, even if applied by individual governments)

The response on here was a typical rubbishing of those involved and the advice.

A judge agrees with an airline, the response is a rubbishing of the judge and his position!

That not one of you seems to publicly concede that this law and it's interpretation is possibly flawed speaks huge volumes

Now awaiting the bullying "butt out PM" or the we'll ignore him he'll go away as don't want to appear weak. Though that seems to have started where I've made a number of polite (I think) but pointed comments over the last couple of days!

philly7445

Wow, I didn't expect to start such a debate. To be honest I hadn't even heard of this until I saw Martin Lewis on the television and someone reminded me we had been delayed a few years back. I have looked at it in some depth and wondered whether I would be entitled as the flight did take off. However from what I have read and from the MSE communities advice I think it would be worth the small effort of writing a letter and posting it. I would have no intention of taking it any further than that if the airline declined the claim.

In response to it being fair, I have also considered this, and while I agree that somebody getting several hundred pounds for a slightly delayed budget flight, this was a transatlantic flight which cost several thousand pounds for our group of 5 and the loss of the first day of our holiday for which we also lost money on the hotel rooms.

Anyway I seem to be going off topic here, so as promised I will write my letter and keep the rest of the MSE community informed as to whether I am successful or not and use my experience to help others.

JPears

But Ich, a significant point overlooked by many is that these regulations are not new by any standards. They have been in effect since 2005 - 9 years now. Airlines have had more than sufficient time to change their business model and logistics model to either improve the reliabilty of their services or maintain their status quo and continue to seriously inconvenience passengers and pay the price.
And they have had that choice. But they want it both ways, they have chosen not to improve reliabilty/punctuality and try to avoid paying compensation wherever possible.
And don't tell me that fares would have to go up to compensate.
They already have, very considerably, over the past 9 years.

Vauban

philly7445 wrote: »

However from what I have read and from the MSE communities advice I think it would be worth the small effort of writing a letter and posting it. I would have no intention of taking it any further than that if the airline declined the claim.

Then you are almost certainly wasting your time - this is not a letter writing exercise.

But you don't have to justify yourself to anyone here - neither Ich nor me!

Skid_Marks

Vauban wrote: »

Then you are almost certainly wasting your time - this is not a letter writing exercise.

But you don't have to justify yourself to anyone here - neither Ich nor me!

Sit back tonight, savour your success, and give Lady Vauban a bit of tlc!

Vauban

Skid_Marks wrote: »

Sit back tonight, savour your success, and give Lady Vauban a bit of tlc!

I tried - but was "denied boarding"

Mark2spark

Ich, I welcome any post that gives an alternative stance, especially if it's backed up by logical reasoning. Healthy debate can only be good for any poster that is considering whether to embark on the journey.
I have some sympathy for the airlines in *genuine* cases of last minute unexpected problems, however the abysmal way they've treated this law, because they don't like it, has stemmed that sympathy.
I think it was worked out that the cost to the airlines would be about £1 per passenger. Even if it was treble that, no-one would notice, and everyone delayed would be extremely pleased if they were to be treated courteously whilst delayed, given info, and then given a speedy payout.