extraordinary circumstances?

greeneyedlad

Hello

I know it has been posted many times that a Technical Defect cannot be claimed as an Extraordinary Circumstance.

However just I wondered if them stating that the fault was;

"detected prior to a previous scheduled flight. This then caused a knock on effect to your flight. The aircraft is unable to be legally dispatched with this defect. Therefore the cause of this delay sits under Extraordinary Circumstances, as the technical issue with the aircraft was not due to poor maintenance and is not something that could have been foreseen." makes any difference??

This was a Thomson holiday with a Monarch flight but still a TOM flight number.
First of all Thomson said it was Monarchs fault, then Monarch said it was Thomson's fault.
Then when I sent them both a 14day letter saying I would issue court proceedings with Thomson as the first defendant & Monarch as the second defendant I got the above email back from Thomson.

BlondMark is very kindly giving up his time to look at & help me get my case together, but I just wondered in the meantime till he gets back to me what anybody else's thoughts were on this please?

It reads to me that my flight didnt have a technical fault at all. It was the previous flight that had the fault & because it was late to fix the fault, it made my flight late also.
I take it they do mean it was the same plane though, & not just the same crew or something? Maybe im thinking about it too much now!

Does this mean I can even take them to court at all now? The fact that it wasnt my flight that had a problem. Yes it was my plane (i think) but not my actual flight #confused

Many thanks for all replies

Martin

David_e

hmtowns post #515 seems to cover that:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62069743#Comment_62069743

This is the Court press release:

http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-10/cp120124en.pdf

Strangley, this seems a bit at odds with this FAQ on the main page:

What if an earlier problem caused a backlog which meant your plane was delayed?
An example would be you're flying from London to New York and all is fine on your route. However, the airline's schedule means the plane you're due to fly on is arriving in London from Dubai, which runs late on the way to the UK, causing your New York-bound flight to be delayed.
To be honest, we're not 100% sure whether you can claim for compensation. The law isn't specific enough to cover the above scenario and there haven't been enough previous cases to set a precedent. However, it is still worth making a claim. Why should you be penalised if the airline chose a tight turnaround time, meaning more chance of it suffering delays? If nothing else, it will help set a precedent.

greeneyedlad

David_e wrote: »

hmtowns post #515 seems to cover that:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62069743#Comment_62069743

This is the Court press release:

http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-10/cp120124en.pdf

Strangley, this seems a bit at odds with this FAQ on the main page:

What if an earlier problem caused a backlog which meant your plane was delayed?
An example would be you're flying from London to New York and all is fine on your route. However, the airline's schedule means the plane you're due to fly on is arriving in London from Dubai, which runs late on the way to the UK, causing your New York-bound flight to be delayed.
To be honest, we're not 100% sure whether you can claim for compensation. The law isn't specific enough to cover the above scenario and there haven't been enough previous cases to set a precedent. However, it is still worth making a claim. Why should you be penalised if the airline chose a tight turnaround time, meaning more chance of it suffering delays? If nothing else, it will help set a precedent.

David_e thank you for your input.
yes it is strange why there's the comment in the FAQs?
the law seems pretty specific what hmtowns quoted!

Vauban

David_e wrote: »

Strangley, this seems a bit at odds with this FAQ on the main page:

Not really, The Finnair judgement relates to a denied boarding situation following a rescheduling of aircraft - not a more conventional "knock-on" delay. I personally don't think it offers what some people think it does - definitive ECJ proof that knock-on delays cannot be extraordinary.

greeneyedlad

Vauban wrote: »

Not really, The Finnair judgement relates to a denied boarding situation following a rescheduling of aircraft - not a more conventional "knock-on" delay. I personally don't think it offers what some people think it does - definitive ECJ proof that knock-on delays cannot be extraordinary.

Vauban thanks.
so do you think i dont have a case & indeed my knock-on delay IS extraordinary?

Vauban

greeneyedlad wrote: »

Vauban thanks.
so do you think i dont have a case & indeed my knock-on delay IS extraordinary?

Didn't we have this conversation about a month ago?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=61603525&postcount=2063

greeneyedlad

Vauban wrote: »

Didn't we have this conversation about a month ago?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=61603525&postcount=2063

Vauban Sorry i didnt see that 1
I dont know what it that all means
Hopefully BlondMark can piece it all together for me when he has time
Thanks anyway guys :T

David_e

Vauban wrote: »

Not really, The Finnair judgement relates to a denied boarding situation following a rescheduling of aircraft - not a more conventional "knock-on" delay. I personally don't think it offers what some people think it does - definitive ECJ proof that knock-on delays cannot be extraordinary.

My lack of knowledge! Hopefully hasn't confused the situation.

greeneyedlad

David_e wrote: »

My lack of knowledge! Hopefully hasn't confused the situation.

David i invited every1s opinion. thank you for ur thoughts x

greeneyedlad

Initially Thomson said they believed the knock-on effect to be true but as they could not confirm it they asked me to contact Monarch to conduct their own investigation.

In their second reply they say as part of their investigation they have checked their flight reports & can see my flight was delayed because of bla bla bla

So suddenly they know this to be true?
whereas before they only believed it to be true?
did they then contact Monarch themselves to investigate?

Does this make any difference anyway for my case??

Mark2spark

David_e wrote: »

hmtowns post #515 seems to cover that:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62069743#Comment_62069743

This is the Court press release:

http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-10/cp120124en.pdf

Strangley, this seems a bit at odds with this FAQ on the main page:

What if an earlier problem caused a backlog which meant your plane was delayed?
An example would be you're flying from London to New York and all is fine on your route. However, the airline's schedule means the plane you're due to fly on is arriving in London from Dubai, which runs late on the way to the UK, causing your New York-bound flight to be delayed.
To be honest, we're not 100% sure whether you can claim for compensation. The law isn't specific enough to cover the above scenario and there haven't been enough previous cases to set a precedent. However, it is still worth making a claim. Why should you be penalised if the airline chose a tight turnaround time, meaning more chance of it suffering delays? If nothing else, it will help set a precedent.

I believe all that lot was written before the Finnair judgement was handed down. A lot of this EU261 stuff is still being contested on the minute details bits - the airlines would like to find a chink that they can wriggle out of.
But so far Wallentin and Sturgeon cover most cases, ie tech issues, on their own, however unexpected, are not EC's.