Flight delay compensation, all other non-EU airlines

wattage05

Cheers Centipede100. Yeah seems to make sense from reading the regs about EU airports etc.

So do we think there's basically nothing I can do about the 10 hours change in flight schedule?

As extra info, if these had been the original times of the flights, I'd have gone the day before.

Cheers for the responses.

Caz3121

wattage05 wrote: »

As extra info, if these had been the original times of the flights, I'd have gone the day before.

Have you asked them if that is an option...they can only say no but they may say yes

DTDfanBoy

Centipede100 wrote: »

As the delay itself (extended stopover) occurs wholly outside of the EU, then the Reg does not apply in your case. Only if the delay occurred before leaving the UK would it extend to your journey.

I disagree with the above and think you have a clear right to compensation.

Your flight clearly falls within the scope of the regulation :

Scope



1. This Regulation shall apply:

(a) to passengers departing from an airport located in the territory

of a Member State to which the Treaty applies;


And the precedent set in Folkerts V Air France case c-11/11 clearly indicates that it is the arrival time at the final destination which is the important fact. It makes it very clear that even if there was no delay at the point of departure, compensation is still due if you arrive at your final destination outside the limits stipulated in the regulations


http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=134201&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2338776


Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 must be interpreted as meaning that compensation is payable, on the basis of that article, to a passenger on directly connecting flights who has been delayed at departure for a period below the limits specified in Article 6 of that regulation, but has arrived at the final destination at least three hours later than the scheduled arrival time, given that the compensation in question is not conditional upon there having been a delay at departure and, thus, upon the conditions set out in Article 6 having been met.

I'm unaware of any case law that supersedes the above findings. I think you have a strong case for compensation :T :beer: :j

DTDfanBoy

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=67587&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=574357

Centipede100 wrote: »

You can disagree all you want DTDfanBoy but the fact remains that the delay will occur at a stopover point outside the EU not at the point of departure in the OP's journey so is not covered by the Reg or case law.

To reinforce that point, the part of the Folkerts judgment you quote above refers to "...a passenger on directly connecting flights who has been delayed at departure for a period below the limits specified in Article 6."

I am confident that the OP is not covered in his situation.

The most relevant part I quoted from the Grand Chamber Judgment is :

"given that the compensation in question is not conditional upon there having been a delay at departure and, thus, upon the conditions set out in Article 6 having been met."

I can also see nothing in the regulations that suggests "You can disagree all you want DTDfanBoy but the fact remains that the delay will occur at a stopover point outside the EU not at the point of departure in the OP's journey so is not covered by the Reg or case law."

Please point out where in the regulations it is suggested that delays occurred at stopover points outside the EU are not covered.

I don't see how you can state " but the fact remains " when I am the one who has provided the evidence to support my facts yet you can show no actual evidence to support your position :eek: Surely if this is as clear cut as you make out you can provide something factual to support your argument

I have also quoted directly from the Regulation itself to show that this booking is covered as the flight departs from an airport in a member state

Keep in mind that article Six from the regulation has no capacity for compensation.

The final destination is clearly defined in the regulations

(h) ‘final destination’ means the destination on the ticket

presented at the check-in counter or, in the case of directly

connecting flights, the destination of the last flight; alternative

connecting flights available shall not be taken into

account if the original planned arrival time is respected;

Take note of the text in bold above.


The term " flight " was dealt with in

Emirates Airlines – Direktion für Deutschland
v
Diether Schenkel

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=67587&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=574357


If you have a read you'll see that at no point was it argued that the " flight " in question was broken, thereby dismissing any rights to 261/2004, when it departed a non member state on a non EU carrier, if that was possible under the regulations as you are suggesting, I find it funny that it was never brought to the courts attention.

Can you point me to where in the regulation it suggests that any delays must happen before the flight departs, especially in regards to article 7, or any relevant case law to support your position.

dzug1

The other question which may (or maybe not) be relevant is whether trailfinders booked through tickets or separate ones.

DTDfanBoy

dzug1 wrote: »

The other question which may (or maybe not) be relevant is whether trailfinders booked through tickets or separate ones.

Yep all my points have been made with an England to Bali return ticket having been purchased, obviously if the trip was purchased in separate segments, England to Singapore return, and Singapore to Bali return no compensation would be due.

But on that route separate tickets would be a lot more expensive so I doubt that was the choice they made

Moto2

Ignoring whether or not it's an EU flight

Surely the fact that the OP has been given advance notice of the re-scheduling means it isn't a delay?

DTDfanBoy

Moto2 wrote: »

Ignoring whether or not it's an EU flight

Surely the fact that the OP has been given advance notice of the re-scheduling means it isn't a delay?

The airline must give at least two weeks notice, the re-routing options decrease depending on how little advance notice is given

Article 5 : Cancellation

Outlines the time frames

(c) have the right to compensation by the operating air carrier

in accordance with Article 7, unless:

(i) they are informed of the cancellation at least two

weeks before the scheduled time of departure; or

(ii) they are informed of the cancellation between two

weeks and seven days before the scheduled time of

departure and are offered re-routing, allowing them to

depart no more than two hours before the scheduled

time of departure and to reach their final destination

less than four hours after the scheduled time of arrival;

or

(iii) they are informed of the cancellation less than seven

days before the scheduled time of departure and are

offered re-routing, allowing them to depart no more

than one hour before the scheduled time of departure

and to reach their final destination less than two hours

after the scheduled time of arrival

DTDfanBoy

Centipede100 wrote: »

Folkerts case law dealt with a situation where the passengers were delayed at the stopover in Paris on a journey from Bremen to Sao Paolo. They were not delayed at the commencement of their journey but in Paris (within the EU). The OP's question concerns a delay wholly outside the EU which is not directly comparable to the delay in the Folkerts case.

The circumstances do not need to be comparable, the judgement made it abundantly clear the it was irrelevant where and for how long the previous delays were, the overriding factor was if the flight arrived at it's final destination, which in this case is Bali, later that the stipulated limits.

You seem to be hung up on where the actual delay occurred, the place that the delay occurred has no relevance to the regulations, the important factors are place of departure, final destination, and if extraordinary circumstances exist or not.

There is absolutely nothing in the regulations that stipulates delays have to occur within the EU as you suggest, if this was the case surely all flights by EU carriers flying into the EU from outside would be excluded, rather than specifically included as they are now.

The Sturgeon judgement made the same point, but didn't go as far as to say "given that the compensation in question is not conditional upon there having been a delay at departure and, thus, upon the conditions set out in Article 6 having been met"

You can't get much clearer than that.

Centipede100 wrote: »

Para 31 of the Emirates v Schenkel case answers your question so I stand by the statement I made above.

Paragraph 31 is simply confirming what the regulations currently state, specifically that any non EU carrier departing a non EU airport has no obligations under the reg. The flight in question did not depart from a non EU airport so that point is irrelevant.

The regulations are very specific in what constitutes a flight departure, in this case the aircraft departs from an EU member state and the final destination is Bali. Anything that happens inbetween, bar extraordinary circumstances, is irrelevant. The overriding factor, as far as compensation concerned, is always the arrival time at final destination. A specific flight will only ever have one point of departure, not several, and one final destination. Emirates v Schenkel clarifies where a flight begins and ends.

If regulation 261/2004 does not apply to the whole flight as you suggest why was the matter not raised in Emirates v Schenkel or in Folkerts V Air France.

In Folkerts one leg of the claimants flight was from a non EU aiport, São Paulo to another non EU airport Asunci!n in Paraguay, if the regulations no longer apply as you suggest why was this not raised in the case ?

Centipede100 wrote: »

To develop the question the OP asks in more detail, not only can the airline cite that the delay occurs outside the jurisdiction of the EU.

The jurisdiction of the EU clearly applies to all flights departing from member states, are you actually suggesting that if issues occur outside of the EU this regulation does not apply :eek: How do think this reg is enforced when events occur outside the EU that directly effect flights departing for it, are they excluded from the regulations as well.

Centipede100 wrote: »

EDIT: Perhaps it should be me asking you where either the Reg or precedent case law supports your view.

I have already supplied that information, but I have yet to see anything from yourself to support your position.

To help you re-think the matter let's try viewing things from a different angle.

What would be your take on things if on the same scheduled flight, namely UK-Singapore-Bali the delay in question occurred in the UK.

Let's say the flight was delayed six hours and arrives in Singapore six hours late, the OP had a scheduled stopover in Singapore for seven hours, and ended up arriving in Bali on time.

Surely by your rationale if the UK delay is the primary consideration as you claim the OP would have grounds for claiming due to the delay, especially as you seem to think that the EU legislation expires when the plane departs Singapore. What do you think the airline would make of the situation ??

markavo1

DTDfanBoy wrote: »

the important factors are place of departure, final destination, and if extraordinary circumstances exist or not.

must admit when I started reading this post, I did think there was no way the reg would apply. but having consider dtd's arguments and the definitions within the reg, i think the above quote does seem to sum it up, and if it wasn't for the extraordinary circumstances that are beyond the control of the airline in this case, then i think they would have a claim to compensation