Germanwings - Foreign object on runway

GM7

Hi all,

I'm trying to claim for a delay of over 11 hours on a flight from Edinburgh to cologne with germanwings. I have received a response from them which states:

The delay of your flight was due to the fact that the aircraft planned for your flight was damaged by a foreign object on the runway. So the aircraft had to be changed which caused the delay in the instant case. This event was completely outside the control of Germanwings. So as the delay of your flight was due to extraordinary circumstances, Art. 5 (3) Reg. (EC) 261/2004, we are sorry to say that no monetary compensation is due.

Has anyone experienced this before and if it can be classified as extraordinary circumstances? All we were told throughout the delay was "technical issues"

Many thanks in advance for your help/thoughts!

Vauban

GM7 wrote: »

Hi all,

I'm trying to claim for a delay of over 11 hours on a flight from Edinburgh to cologne with germanwings. I have received a response from them which states:

The delay of your flight was due to the fact that the aircraft planned for your flight was damaged by a foreign object on the runway. So the aircraft had to be changed which caused the delay in the instant case. This event was completely outside the control of Germanwings. So as the delay of your flight was due to extraordinary circumstances, Art. 5 (3) Reg. (EC) 261/2004, we are sorry to say that no monetary compensation is due.

Has anyone experienced this before and if it can be classified as extraordinary circumstances? All we were told throughout the delay was "technical issues"

Many thanks in advance for your help/thoughts!

Depends. Personally, I think it's debatable about whether damage by a foreign body is "extraordinary", but a lot would also depend on exactly when the incident happened, and what the airline did to minimise the delay. A delay of 11 hours sounds a bit difficult to justify to me. I'd ask for more details, including a chronology of when the original accident occured and what efforts were made to source you another plane.

Mark2spark

...and also trying to place you on another flight with another airline.

GM7

Thanks for your replies guys! I have replied back asking for more detailed information on where the incident occurred and for an explanation of why the delay was so long. Will let you know what they come back with!

GM7

Had a response back from Germanwings:

"The foreign object damage happened at EDI airport just before your flight. The technicians first tried to fix the damage right in EDI to start your flight as soon as possible. After an intensive inspection it was obvious that the damage could not be fixed in due time. So a replacement aircraft was brought from our base in STR to EDI to cover your flight. We are sorry to say that in the light of the given circumstances it was impossible to start your flight any earlier."

Not really sure where to go next with this... Has anyone had a similar issue? I guess the key question is would this be classified as EC?

Many thanks in advance for your thoughts!

111KAB

GM7 wrote: »

Many thanks in advance for your thoughts!

NBA then court - 11 hours far too long given proximity of a substitute aircraft.

GM7

Thanks 111KAB .... Would you argue that the foreign object on the runway is not EC? Or that simply the delay was too long given the proximity of substitute aircraft?

111KAB

GM7 wrote: »

Thanks 111KAB .... Would you argue that the foreign object on the runway is not EC? Or that simply the delay was too long given the proximity of substitute aircraft?

You need to ask what this foreign object was and the extent of the damage and exactly when it occurred. Are Edinburgh airport able to provide you with any information (nice email to them might be worth it) as you can bet that if they were held to blame Germanwings would/will be seeking compensation from them. Ask for the repair log to see whose technicians examined the problem as I wonder if they waited for their own guys to be flown in?
Think both aspects need thorough examination and indeed (even though I think they are generally useless) a note to the CAA asking about the runway debris may assist.
Until you have fuller picture (which may only be gleaned by NBA/Court action) then it is difficult to see which route to follow.

friendofbillw2

GM7 wrote: »

Thanks 111KAB .... Would you argue that the foreign object on the runway is not EC? Or that simply the delay was too long given the proximity of substitute aircraft?

Argue both.

That planes being damaged by foreign objects is inherent in the normal activities of an air carrier, but not withstanding that, the airline did not use all reasonable measures short of intolerable sacrifices to minimise your delay.

Is it me or are the airlines getting cuter at describing faults now they know many of us have read Wallentin?

Rather than 'our plane went tech, the left gubbins widget has never gone before so it's extraordinary' they seem to be finding different, more 'outside their control' type things to blame delays on?