Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

Amp-333

Evening all,

I had a delayed flight recently from UK to Prague which landed over 3 hours late and so I am led to believe that I was entitled to €250 compensation (there was two of us so 500 total), however the airline has offered me €250 in total and said that the compensation may be halved and provided the following statement:

In relation to reducing compensation for delay claims, paragraph 63 of the Sturgeon case applies Article 7(2) to delay claims - http /eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62007CJ0402&from=EN

I did attempt to read this article but am more confused than clear, from my understanding, as we were given £3 food vouchers, they meet this criteria and are therefore allowed to reduce the compensation by 50%, is this correct or have I misunderstood / are they misleading me?

Thank you for any advice you can give

Justice13075

Start by putting your flight details into bottonline and euclaim and see what they say Were you delayed leaving the UK if yes how long

Amp-333

It left 4 hours late, and arrived 3 hours 15 minutes late, and yes this was on the outbound flight from the UK.

I looked at several sites before and the best I got was a blanket statement of "you could be entitled to 500", however unless I initiated this process (and therefore comitted to the fee etc), I do not know how much I would have actually received. Thank you for suggesting them two sites, I will try them shortly.

The offer I received at the moment is from the airline directly who have agreed that there was a technical issue but said that a 50% reduction in compensation is present and quoted the Sturgeon cases through the link above, as well as providing the excerpt:

"63. It is important to point out that the compensation payable to a passenger under Article 7(1) of Regulation No 261/2004 may be reduced by 50% if the conditions laid down in Article 7(2) of the regulation are met. Even though the latter provision refers only to the case of re-routing of passengers, the Court finds that the reduction in the compensation provided for is dependent solely on the delay to which passengers are subject, so that nothing precludes the application mutatis mutandis of that provision to compensation paid to passengers whose flights are delayed. It follows that the compensation payable to a passenger whose flight is delayed, who reaches his final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled, may be reduced by 50%, in accordance with Article 7(2)(c) of Regulation No 261/2004, where the delay is !!!8211; in the case of a flight not falling under points (a) or (b) of Article 7(2) !!!8211; less than four hours."

Tyzap

From Vaubans great guide...

The amount of compensation due depends upon the length of the journey, as measured by the !!!8220;Great Circle Method!!!8221;
[see http://www.greatcirclemapper.net]:

- If the flight was less than 1,500km, you are due !!!8364;250 per passenger;

- If the flight was between 1,500km and 3,500km, you are due !!!8364;400 per passenger;

- If the flight was over 3,500km, you are due !!!8364;600 per passenger. This last tier can be reduced by 50% (to !!!8364;300) if the flight arrived less than four hours late.

Amp-333

The flight was under 1500Km and so I believe I am entitled to the 250 per passenger, but the airline is claiming that they are within their rights to reduce this by 50%. Your quote states that they may reduce it by 50% but for this last tier only, whereas my claim is the first tier? Having a read through the documentation the airline provided it does seem correct, but all other guides and posts do not mention this 50% reduction

Tyzap

Amp-333 wrote: »

The flight was under 1500Km and so I believe I am entitled to the 250 per passenger, but the airline is claiming that they are within their rights to reduce this by 50%. Your quote states that they may reduce it by 50% but for this last tier only, whereas my claim is the first tier? Having a read through the documentation the airline provided it does seem correct, but all other guides and posts do not mention this 50% reduction

No, either they have got it wrong or they are trying to trick you out of 50%, you never know with the airlines.

Quote the regs back at them and see what they say. You'll find the same table on the CAA web site and in the EC261 regulations.

Good luck.

Amp-333

Thank you for your advice, is there not a logical argument though that the Sturgeon case occured after EC261 and so itself is more of an ammendment to the regulations?

Sorry if I appear awkward, I do not wish it to appear like this but I would like to be able to respond to them with a coherent argument and at this stage I can understand why they make think they are entitled to a 50% reduction, but if it is incorrect then I would like to inform them of this and claim my full compensation.

Thank you again

JPears

Hi,
the sturgeon case, in case law, established that a delay of 3-4 hours was the same as a cancellation for the purposes of regulation 261/2004.
It clarified a grey area. In the same way that Huzar clarified that a technical fault was not an EC.

chilster11

Hi All
First time of posting..
My family and I were delayed at UK airport for 6hours, but were not given reason- technical or not.. after reading through these posts I see that we may not qualify for compensation is this correct?

Amp-333

Thank you for your contribution JPears.

I have had another look at the Sturgeon Case and see the comment in Costs (2) which is the part you refer to regarding a delay of 3-4 hours is regarded as a cancellation. The compensation for a cancellation is still taken from Article (7) and so I am not really sure how this makes much of a difference?

I still am unclear as to why the airline is wrong in their claim that they may reduce my claim by 50%, If the following is correct:

"It follows that the compensation payable to a passenger whose flight is delayed, who reaches his final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled, may be reduced by 50%, in accordance with Article 7(2)(c) of Regulation No 261/2004, where the delay is !!!8211; in the case of a flight not falling under points (a) or (b) of Article 7(2) !!!8211; less than four hours" (Sturgeon Case)

Taken from Article 7 (2) of 261/2004:

2. When passengers are offered re-routing to their final destination on an alternative flight pursuant to Article 8, the arrival time of which does not exceed the scheduled arrival time of the flight originally booked

(a) by two hours, in respect of all flights of 1500 kilometres or less; or

(b) by three hours, in respect of all intra-Community flights of more than 1500 kilometres and for all other flights between 1500 and 3500 kilometres; or

(c) by four hours, in respect of all flights not falling under (a) or (b),

the operating air carrier may reduce the compensation provided for in paragraph 1 by 50 %.

As my flight had a late landing of over 3 hours but was a distance of less than 1500Km, it cannot meet section (a) or (b), however it also does not meet section (c) as it was not a four hour delay. Does this mean the Sturgeon case would simply not apply?

Thanks in advance