Flight delay compensation, all other non-EU airlines

JPears

Bumped to the top for noobs

tadgh_99

Hi,

In June of last year (2014), my (now) sister-in-law was due to meet up with us in Krabi for our wedding.

The flight she took was from LHR - AUH - BKK

Immediately before departure the passengers were greeted with an announcement that there would be a three hour delay to the take off time, but that any connecting connecting flights would held back so that connections could be made.

My sister-in-laws connecting flight in AUH was due to leave approx 2.5 hours after she'd arrived.

However, upon her arrival at AUH (3hrs 17 mins late) she found that the connecting flight had left without her (on time) and that there were no further flights to BKK until the morning.

The Etihad ground staff re-booked her on the next flight to BKK (9 AM the next morning, 10 hours 43 mins after she'd arrived) then left her to fend for herself overnight (nice).

Not knowing what to do, she contacted us. Once we got involved (after several phone calls to Etihad), we managed to get her rerouted to Phuket on an Air Berlin flight which departed about two hours before the re-booked flight to BKK.

Once in Phuket, we made arrangements for a taxi to Krabi (in order for her to make in time for the wedding).

Now, I have had several e-mail conversations concerning compensation with Etihad in the UK and each time they exonerate themselves by stating that EU261/2004 doesn't apply to them as they are a non-EU carrier and that the leg that the resulting delay was outside of the EU and, therefore, does not warrant any compensation.

However Etihad have offered 20,000 guest miles (completely useless as they can only be used from Abu Dhabi) and (under the Montreal Convention) the cost of the taxi from Phuket to Krabi.

I've checked through the EU regulation (and even sought clarification from the EC) concerning our position.

In summary, the EC reply was that EU261/2004 applies to ALL flights leaving an EU member state airport regardless of nationality and that it is the delay at the final destination of the ticket presented at check-in (BKK) that matters not the connection.

As far as I'm concerned (and after reading through Vauban's excellent guide to claiming compensation and the judgement links referred in this document) this trip meets all the criteria for a claim.

However, I do have a couple of questions that I hope can be answered by readers on here;

1. As she was re-routed and never actually made the final destination on the ticket presented at check-in, would the basis of this claim still have grounds?

2. If the general consensus to 1. is yes then I think I should start legal proceedings against Etihad (I've had enough of demonstrating the errors of their ways only for the reply to be some variation on the stock non-EU airline answer). If I were to do this myself would I have to attend court in person for the hearing?

I would really like to do this without involving a NWNF company and submit a small claims myself, but since the event we've moved to Australia and the costs for attending a court hearing would far exceed any compensation due.

Please note that this claim is not about getting money out of them, but to show Etihad that the way they just left a young(ish) single female to fend for herself overnight in a foreign airport is just not on when they were the cause if it.

Thanks in advance.

Vauban

tadgh_99 wrote: »

I would really like to do this without involving a NWNF company and submit a small claims myself, but since the event we've moved to Australia and the costs for attending a court hearing would far exceed any compensation due.

I am sure you have a case here, but I'm less clear what advice you're asking for? You need to be able to attend court to start a legal action yourself (with a serviceable UK address) so this option doesn't look open to you. I don't know if a NWNF firm would take this on, given you now live in Australia, but you might drop one of the more respectable outfits a line and see. If it's about the principle, rather than the money per se (which most people on this forum will be sympathetic to) then a NWNF route is probably best, isn't it?

tadgh_99

Hi Vauban,

I was just after a bit of advice / feedback about the complexity of the flight (i.e. she was re-routed etc). I was pretty sure that I / we have a case but just wanted a third parties view.

I'm basically doing this on behalf of my sister-in-law.

As it is about principle and not money, I will probably go with a NWNF company (have been having a look at Bott & Co). But once I've passed it over to them, I will probably get her to run with it (even though I do have a serviceable address in the UK).

Thanks for the advice...great compensation guide by the way. Very very informative.

razorsedge

tadgh_99 wrote: »

However, upon her arrival at AUH (3hrs 17 mins late)

I reckon the delay of over 3 hours arriving at AUH would entitle you to some compensation anyway.

tadgh_99

razorsedge wrote: »

I reckon the delay of over 3 hours arriving at AUH would entitle you to some compensation anyway.

That would make sense but, from my understanding, the reg only would only apply to
(i) a delay of 3 hours or more for a flight within the EU or Intra-community as the reg puts it which (it wasn't an Intra-community flight) or
(ii) All other flights between 1500 -3500 km (AUH is 7062km from LHR so it doesn't fall into this category) or
(iii) A delay of 4 hours or more not covered previously (the delay was a mere 3hrs 17 mins so it doesn't fall into that category either).

What really gets my goat though is the fact that they are basing their actions on what the delay was on arrival and not what the delay would have been (nearly 11 hours to the next flight) and just left someone to fend for themselves, when the airline themselves caused the whole sordid affair.

It just isn't right. They didn't even offer to give access to a lounge let alone accommodation for the night.

As I mentioned before, this isn't about compensation per se. It is about showing this airline (or any airline) that we are paying customers and will not stand for shoddy (and let's face it, down right disrespectful) customer service when they are the cause of the delay.

The only way of doing this these days, is showing them the error of their ways by forceably taking money off them (i.e. compensation).

Sorry, rant over.

razorsedge

tadgh_99 wrote: »

That would make sense but, from my understanding, the reg only would only apply to
(i) a delay of 3 hours or more for a flight within the EU or Intra-community as the reg puts it which (it wasn't an Intra-community flight) or
(ii) All other flights between 1500 -3500 km (AUH is 7062km from LHR so it doesn't fall into this category) or
(iii) A delay of 4 hours or more not covered previously (the delay was a mere 3hrs 17 mins so it doesn't fall into that category either).

What really gets my goat though is the fact that they are basing their actions on what the delay was on arrival and not what the delay would have been (nearly 11 hours to the next flight) and just left someone to fend for themselves, when the airline themselves caused the whole sordid affair.

It just isn't right. They didn't even offer to give access to a lounge let alone accommodation for the night.

As I mentioned before, this isn't about compensation per se. It is about showing this airline (or any airline) that we are paying customers and will not stand for shoddy (and let's face it, down right disrespectful) customer service when they are the cause of the delay.

The only way of doing this these days, is showing them the error of their ways by forceably taking money off them (i.e. compensation).

Sorry, rant over.

Have another read of EU 261/2004 and the Sturgeon Judgment (paras 61-63 in particular)

You are quoting from Article 6 of the Regs which determines the parameters for your right to care under Article 9 if the flight is delayed at departure.

However, your right to compensation for delay at arrival is determined by Article 7 Section 1 (following the Sturgeon case - this is 3 hours or more for all flights), which according to 1 (c) would work out at 'EUR 600 for all flights not falling under (a) or (b)'. This figure is then reduced to EUR 300 by Article 7 Section 2 (c) because the flight is not included in Section 2 (a) or (b) and the delay was less than 4 hours.

tadgh_99

Thanks razorsedge,

Have just re-read 261/2004 and you are spot on. This just enforces our position. I will be sending Etihad a copy of the relevant article.

Etihad were drawing me to the fact that the delay was only 3hrs & 17 mins on arrival and completely ignored the delay in the connecting flight.

Grateful for your insight.

Thanks.

27/9/2016 - Update

We opted to go for a compensation claim company (as we are living away from the UK at the moment and have to be present in court ourselves if claiming directly).

However, Etihad have backed down and agreed to pay the €600 compensation.

Payment should be made in the next couple of weeks.

Dr_Watson

Group Bumping

NoviceAngel

and again back to page 1