Aircraft Doors Fault Extraordinary Circumstnaces Help!

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

I am preparing my rebuttal to Thomson and they have cited that the reason for the delay was due to a fault with the Aircraft Door(s). As such this is Extraordinary Circumstances.

Can anyone help me come up with reasons why this is NOT ECs?

Also the fault occurred during another part of the Aircraft's itinerary and our delay was a knock on effect of this. have quoted the Finnair Case in respect of this.

I am getting to my tether end and to be honest feeling like throwing the towel in

HELP!!! and INSPIRATION!

David_e

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

I am preparing my rebuttal to Thomson and they have cited that the reason for the delay was due to a fault with the Aircraft Door(s). As such this is Extraordinary Circumstances.

I am not aware of any passenger plane that has not had doors so a problem with the doors is "inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned" and not extraordinary, in my view.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

I am getting to my tether end and to be honest feeling like throwing the towel in

I think that it is the policy of airlines to deal with claims in a manner that makes people think like that. There is all the ammunition and advice you need on this site but you have to be prepared to make a legal claim as it's likely they will happily mess you about for ever if you don't.

romanby1

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

I am preparing my rebuttal to Thomson and they have cited that the reason for the delay was due to a fault with the Aircraft Door(s). As such this is Extraordinary Circumstances.

Can anyone help me come up with reasons why this is NOT ECs?

Also the fault occurred during another part of the Aircraft's itinerary and our delay was a knock on effect of this. have quoted the Finnair Case in respect of this.

I am getting to my tether end and to be honest feeling like throwing the towel in

HELP!!! and INSPIRATION!

Knock on effects are not an EC. See Wallentin -Hermann and Sturgeon rulings

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

romanby1 wrote: »

Knock on effects are not an EC. See Wallentin -Hermann and Sturgeon rulings

I have looked through it and can't find the paragraph that says "knock on effects are not EC's".

I think I am getting stress blindness.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Right I have been through the Wallentin Sturgeon and Hermann rulings and have even done a find on"knock on" to try to find it in there and can find nothing.

Sorry this is becoming too complicated so I think I might bow out of this and my case can be added to the Court Failure thread.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Could someone please tell me where in these documents it says:

"Delays caused by delays to a previous flight are not Extraordinary Circumctances"?

I can't find it anywhere

David_e

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

Could someone please tell me where in these documents it says:

"Delays caused by delays to a previous flight are not Extraordinary Circumctances"?

I can't find it anywhere

If you search on the words "previous flight" in the search MSE box (top right) it brings up about 300 postings.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

David_e wrote: »

If you search on the words "previous flight" in the search MSE box (top right) it brings up about 300 postings.

LOL I Think I have found it now in the Finnair case:

37 In addition, it is apparent from recital 15 in the preamble to Regulation No 261/2004 that ‘extraordinary circumstances’ may relate only to ‘a particular aircraft on a particular day’, which cannot apply to a passenger denied boarding because of the rescheduling of flights as a result of extraordinary circumstances affecting an earlier flight.

I think that is what I am looking for - I am just so stressed with this. I am sick of Thomsons pathetic brinkanship and petty fobbings off and Extraordinary Circumstances.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Centipede100 wrote: »

Please do not quote the Finnair case in your witness statement since that case concerned denied boarding and not a delayed flight. The difference might seem subtle but the airline will pounce on this and use it to baffle the judge into submission.

You need to stick to Wallentin-Hermann and Sturgeon, both cases support your claim big time. Another case which tends to lend support to the airline having to sort out issues quickly so that they do not have 'knock on effects' is the Eglitis & Ratnieks v Air Baltic: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=261%252F2004&docid=82052&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=477772#ctx1

"Article 5(3) 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 an air carrier, since it is obliged to implement all reasonable measures to avoid extraordinary circumstances, must reasonably, at the stage of organising the flight, take account of the risk of delay connected to the possible occurrence of such circumstances. It must, consequently, provide for a certain reserve time to allow it, if possible, to operate the flight in its entirety once the extraordinary circumstances have come to an end. However, that provision cannot be interpreted as requiring, as a ‘reasonable measure’, provision to be made, generally and without distinction, for a minimum reserve time applicable in the same way to all air carriers in all situations when extraordinary circumstances arise. The assessment of the ability of the air carrier to operate the programmed flight in its entirety in the new conditions resulting from the occurrence of those circumstances must be carried out in such a way as to ensure that the length of the required reserve time does not result in the air carrier being led to make intolerable sacrifices in the light of the capacities of its undertaking at the relevant time. Article 6(1) of that regulation is not applicable in the context of such an assessment".

I simply cannot find the right bits in the Wallentin and Sturgeon and now I have a massive headache from it all.

P_Doff

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

I simply cannot find the right bits in the Wallentin and Sturgeon and now I have a massive headache from it all.

I really don't think it matters. If it is a tech problem, it matters not whether it occurs on your flight or an earlier one. See post #172 in the court success thread for what is important.

friendofbillw2

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

I simply cannot find the right bits in the Wallentin and Sturgeon and now I have a massive headache from it all.

Put it down today and come back to it with fresh eyes and a clear head tomorrow.

If you want to chuck it in then by all means do, but bear in mind that you have a good case and frustrating people into submission is exactly what the airlines are trying to do.

Go the distance. The victory will be so much sweeter the harder fought it is.