extraordinary circumstances?

blondmark

greeneyedlad wrote: »

should i say any of that??
im not sure what 2 put on the European form iv 2 fill in, or have i 2 just put "please refer to the attached Particulars of the Claim" that you did for me Mark?!

Erm ... don't quote that; it's just an observation on the scope of a case called Finnair Oyj v Timy Lassooy which has been quite narrowly interpreted here. Send over what you've done so far if you like.

greeneyedlad

Ok Mark thanks i'll send over what iv put on European Form A to you in the morning mate

Mark2spark

I've also commented on another thread, that my broad take on the Finnair ruling - even though it applies to denied boarding - is that as the ruling states that knock on effects can't be carried forward for denied boarding, IMO they can't be carried forward onto later flights in the day (by the same aircraft).
You'll see airlines using terminology like 'the aircraft completed the first sector without problems' - which insinuates that all of these sectors are some sort of joined up plan.
Not so.
Each flight is individual and a delay to your flight must have EC's directly affecting your flight to be valid.

Vauban

Mark2spark wrote: »

I've also commented on another thread, that my broad take on the Finnair ruling - even though it applies to denied boarding - is that as the ruling states that knock on effects can't be carried forward for denied boarding, IMO they can't be carried forward onto later flights in the day (by the same aircraft).
You'll see airlines using terminology like 'the aircraft completed the first sector without problems' - which insinuates that all of these sectors are some sort of joined up plan.
Not so.
Each flight is individual and a delay to your flight must have EC's directly affecting your flight to be valid.

I honestly don't think this is quite right: the regulations refers to ECs affecting "a particular aircraft on a particular day", (not a particular flight, note) so I think that there are some knock-ons that could be classed as ECs. The only unambiguous point in this respect is in relation to weather, where it the weather needs directly to affect the flight concerned.

Good debate. However you interpret it, it shows it's not slam dunk!

Mark2spark

I take that on board Vauban, particularly that piece of grammar "particular aircraft on a particular day'.
I was thinking of ways in which that could be interpreted though, and didn't come up with many.
Last minute ATC reasons on short haul not leaving enough time for the airline to realise that there is a problem with the following flight was about all I could come up with.

Isn't that similar to JPears ruling?

Vauban

Mark2spark wrote: »

I take that on board Vauban, particularly that piece of grammar "particular aircraft on a particular day'.
I was thinking of ways in which that could be interpreted though, and didn't come up with many.
Last minute ATC reasons on short haul not leaving enough time for the airline to realise that there is a problem with the following flight was about all I could come up with.

Isn't that similar to JPears ruling?

I agree with you, my friend. This is only an issue if you assume that technical faults can be extraordinary. If a plane develops a technical fault on an outbound leg in the morning that could be regarded as extraordinary, then a delay to the return leg on the same day could also be covered.

Of course, the only kind of technical faults that should count are things not inherent in the normal business of flying, like sabotage.

All of which is to say that folk are better off, in my personal (and non-legal!) judgement arguing the points of Wallentin (which are strong) rather than parking on Finnair, which is more wobbly and strictly a bit of a distraction.

Hope I'm making sense!

Mark2spark

Yep. IMO if knock on effects are part of the defence then a Wallentin based argument is the main retort, with an aside to Finnair, where it's casually pointed out that knock on effects are ruled NOT to apply to cases of denied boarding under the same EU261 Regulation, would be my stance.

Sweet_FA

Hi all.

This is my first post on here, so please be patient with me!

A wonderful holiday in Turkey was ruined for my partner & I by a delay of in excess of 5 hours on our return Monarch flight from Dalaman to Manchester.

We became aware of the delay when we checked Monarch's website on the morning of our return flight from Dalaman. We were due to leave Dalaman at 22:00, arriving in Manchester at 00:35 local time. However, Monarch's website stated that the flight was delayed & was due to arrive at 05:55, a delay of more than 5 hours!

I'll try not to go into too much detail, but our return flight left Dalaman at around 03:20 am and arrived in Manchester at 06.00 (a delay of almost five & a half hours).

On boarding the aircraft, the pilot apologised for the delay. He stated that the reason for the delay was that the plane had been damaged by baggage handlers the previous day (from what I can recall, around 36 hours before we were due to fly back from Dalaman).

I complained in writing to Monarch & have now received claim forms for my partner & I. Looking at previous posts I get the feeling that Monarch will try to reject our claims due to 'Extraordinary Circumstances'. I'm just wondering whether they can claim 'EC' due to the fact that the plane had been damaged the previous day by a third party (the baggage handlers)?

Any feedback regarding the above from previous posters/claimants would be greatly appreciated.

111KAB

Sweet_FA wrote: »

Any feedback regarding the above from previous posters/claimants would be greatly appreciated.

You are on a winner! Just comply with Monarch's request re their forms and go from there. Likelihood is you will have to issue a NBA prior to taking court action. Future posts are best placed on the Monarch specific thread.

Vauban

Sweet_FA wrote: »

A wonderful holiday in Turkey was ruined for my partner & I by a delay of in excess of 5 hours on our return Monarch flight from Dalaman to Manchester.

Really? I know being delayed in pretty rubbish, but all the same I don't think I would say that my 24 delay in returning from Sharm ruined my family holiday.

Anyhow 111KAB has it right: fill in their forms, give them four weeks to pronounce, write an NBA, and then take them to court. You may get lucky and they could pay out before that happens - but I wouldn't bet on it.