Flight delay compensation, all other non-EU airlines

htb

Help please. United Airlines. CAA supported my claim but couldnt get UA to pay out, took it to moneyclaim online, UA did not respond, judgement was made 27th april 2016 - Ive given them a month to pay (as it was payment immediately), still no payment. I can pay for a bailiff through the court, but wondered if there was any other approach? someone mentioned a way in which you can make them attend court? - any advice on next steps. Im so angry with them now. starting to worry I had the wrong UK address too... sent everything to perimiter road, hounslow

htb

Derek_Howlett wrote: »

Hello, I am looking for advice due to conflicting articles i have seen.

I had a flight with Emirates to Phuket from LGW connecting in Dubai. LGW - DXB arrived on time and the DXB -HKT departed on time however we were then diverted to Mumbai due to an engine issue and ended up arriving in Phuket 12 hours late. Some arcticles seem to imply it is the final destination arrival time that matters others suggest that the second leg departing outside EU and operated by non EU airline means the delay doesn't come under the EU ruling.

Can someone clarify the situation please




Vaubhns guide will explain better. My understanding is (and its only my understanding others may put me right on this) if you are on a through ticket and the delay in the EU has caused a delay to your final destination noted on that ticket (e.g. missed connecting flights) - this falls into the scope of the regs, although airlines are trying to wriggle out of it. If the delay is outside the EU, on the 2nd leg it doesn't really fall within the scope of the regs.

ShirleyLH

Thank you very much David - I did read Vauban's guide prior to posting and agree it is excellent. It is from this I picked up on about 'knock ons' where the cause of the delay and subsequent cancellation occurred on the previous flight and therefore not on the one we were on. Vauban's guide says the best argument in the case of 'knock ons' is Wallentin and that the greater the time between the original incident and your flight then the harder it is for the airline to show that it took all reasonable measures such as sourcing another plane to prevent the delay. In our case it was seventeen hours from our original flight to the one we eventually left on. The court case I referred to was something I read about somewhere else but it did say that the judgement that was made that lightening strikes do not count as extraordinary circumstances was not binding. In view of the latter then perhaps it would be best to put it in the hands of Bott & Co!

DrA_Harrogate

htb wrote: »

- any advice on next steps. Im so angry with them now. starting to worry I had the wrong UK address too... sent everything to perimiter road, hounslow

You have a Court judgement and a (correct afai can see) UK address. I know of no solution other than bailiff. You can at least enjoy the panic that will ensue at United when they show up.

DIYBaldyman

ShirleyLH wrote: »

Vauban's guide says the best argument in the case of 'knock ons' is Wallentin and that the greater the time between the original incident and your flight then the harder it is for the airline to show that it took all reasonable measures such as sourcing another plane to prevent the delay. In our case it was seventeen hours from our original flight to the one we eventually left on. The court case I referred to was something I read about somewhere else but it did say that the judgement that was made that lightening strikes do not count as extraordinary circumstances was not binding. In view of the latter then perhaps it would be best to put it in the hands of Bott & Co!

Hi Shirley, to add to what you've already researched - if you also refer to the Finnair v Lassooy judgement (which is binding), it ruled that even an event that is considered an 'extraordinary-circumstance' cannot be used to avoid paying compensation in the event of a 'knock-on' delay (ie a rescheduled or cancelled flight due to a delay to an earlier flight).

Vauban

DIYBaldyman wrote: »

Hi Shirley, to add to what you've already researched - if you also refer to the Finnair v Lassooy judgement (which is binding), it ruled that even an event that is considered an 'extraordinary-circumstance' cannot be used to avoid paying compensation in the event of a 'knock-on' delay (ie a rescheduled or cancelled flight due to a delay to an earlier flight).

Actually, it doesn't quite say this.

It's a bit of an urban myth that "knock ons" cannot be ECs - there is nothing in the Regulation or case law to show this.

The Finnair judgement is about a denial of boarding for some passengers on the same plane. It doesn't have a general application re knock ons and I don't think lawyers try to use it in court.

DIYBaldyman

Vauban wrote: »

Actually, it doesn't quite say this.

It's a bit of an urban myth that "knock ons" cannot be ECs - there is nothing in the Regulation or case law to show this.

The Finnair judgement is about a denial of boarding for some passengers on the same plane. It doesn't have a general application re knock ons and I don't think lawyers try to use it in court.

Vauban, I didn't say that 'knock-ons' can't be E.C.'s, I said that if the cause of a knock-on delay is considered E.C., the E.C. can't be used as a reason not to pay out passengers on later flights.

Although the Finnair case itself was about denial of boarding for "some passengers on the same plane", the final ruling of the judgement doesn't state that any rescheduled later flights have to be the same plane.

I successfully used Finnair against Thomas Cook (they settled) & linked it to Sturgeon to show that a delay should be considered the same as a denial of boarding.

Vauban

DIYBaldyman wrote: »

Vauban, I didn't say that 'knock-ons' can't be E.C.'s, I said that if the cause of a knock-on delay is considered E.C., the E.C. can't be used as a reason not to pay out passengers on later flights.

This doesn't make sense to me, I'm afraid. But if you are saying that the law says that a knock on delay caused originally by extraordinary circumstances means compensation is definitely payable, I'd ask you to show me the case law that says that. As far as I am aware, there is none - except for the third question of the Wallentin judgement.

DIYBaldyman

Vauban wrote: »

This doesn't make sense to me, I'm afraid. But if you are saying that the law says that a knock on delay caused originally by extraordinary circumstances means compensation is definitely payable, I'd ask you to show me the case law that says that. As far as I am aware, there is none - except for the third question of the Wallentin judgement.

I'm not saying 'definitely payable', but that an airline cannot play the E.C. card in those circumstances & in most cases I would imagine that claiming E.C. is their only defence...

So, unless I'm interpreting it incorrectly (I don't believe I am & neither did Thomas Cook's legal team), the 2nd ruling of Finnair says exactly that;

Articles 2(j) and 4(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that the occurrence of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ resulting in an air carrier rescheduling flights after those circumstances arose cannot give grounds for denying boarding on those later flights or for exempting that carrier from its obligation, under Article 4(3) of that regulation, to compensate a passenger to whom it denies boarding on such a flight.

Sturgeon rules that a delay over the stated 3 hours is equivalent to a cancellation or denial of boarding.

I interpret the above to mean (for example), if a genuine E.C. causes 'FLIGHT A' to be delayed & it subsequently directly causes the later FLIGHTS B, C & D etc... to also be delayed after the E.C. occurred, the airline would not be exempt from paying out to passengers on FLIGHTS B, C & D etc...

If, as I assume, Finnair is a binding judgement, then by default it is now law.

Stewart_Henry

Hi

Quick question, sorry if its been asked before I did look around but theres a lot to filter through!
Short version,

Booked Return flights with BA (Newcastle>London>MIami, Miami>London>Newcastle). My return flight was still a BA reference but operated by American Airlines (as they merge planes sometimes being partners)

My return flight to london was delayed 2 hours, which resulted in me missing my connecting flight and being re-booked onto another flight home, actually arriving in Newcastle over 4 hours past my original return time.

I contacted BA who refused responsibility,

Is this eligible at all?