Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

airplane500

Thanks for the quick response! Yes, it's a UK airline. Do different Aviation Authorities have different enforcments of the same law then? I want to take the airline to the small claims court to compensate myself, but I would also like the Aviation Authority to punish the airline for lying to me about the cause of cancellation. I'd also like to know the outcome of other passengers on the same flight.
It seems absurd that if an airline is bound by EU regulations to compensate for cancellations, they can get away with only compensating passengers who have the time and tenacity to plough through the details of EU law!

richardw

If you want to find other passengers on the same flight, put the details in a reply on this thread and google will pick this thread up when searched. Some may have already posted on https://www.flightmole.com/forum

If it is a UK airline they should have a registered address and not a PO Box.
Yes, research if that countries National Enforcement Body has teeth or is about to get them.

Good point, perhaps complain to your MEP about their Regulations not being enforced.

airplane500

I've done numerous searches for the flight number, the airline, the date of the cancellation and have found nothing. If I get anywhere with the small claims court, I'll post specific details on here so anyone else on the same flight can find the info.
I've just realised the POBox is for their customer complaints dept, not for the actual airline. Is it the CEO or MD who I name as the person who owes me money in the small claims court?
Also, do you know if the airline has to pay for onward travel (taxi fare/cancelled train ticket) caused by their cancellation?

richardw

Have you got legal expenses cover with an insurance policy?

The reason I ask is that if you have a browse of https://www.flightmole.com/forum you'll notice that for some bringing claims is a pain in the neck and the airlines' solicitor's correspondence can be unpleasant, if you have legal expenses cover it may be a lot easier to claim on it. Some also consider using https://www.euclaim.com to save them the hassle.

It is unlikely that you'd get compensation in time for Christmas and it may take a while, so perhaps consider if you are in this for the longhaul, might be worth waiting for the response from the National Enforcement body first.

airplane500

Will check on the legal expenses cover on household insurance tonight. I sent the airline a letter yesterday stating I would be seeking compensation through HMCS and they had 5 working days to offer the correct amount.
I've just emailed my MP and MEPs asking them to look at the enforcement of Reg 261/2004 with regards to airline's responsibility to compensate all passengers on a cancelled flight.

airplane500

Is it the airline's CEO I name as the person on the MCOS form I want to claim the money from?

ian41

No it is not. You are chasing a corporate entity for the debt. The name is the name of the airline and its registered office. The names of the CEO, MD and/or the Chairmen are irrelevant - some might suggest in more ways than one!.

I do not want to put a dampener on your rush to complete MCOL but suggest you read first the many helpful threads on flightmole in the Click for Help section and check out the appropriate airline thread as richardw suggested earlier. It will save you time, probably money and ensure that you are doing the right thing.

It would also be helpful to post the date, airline, flight number, arrival and departure airports so that forum members could assist you and guide you on your eligibility for compensation.

airplane500

[FONT=&quot]I have a letter from the airline which details the “extraordinary circumstances” as, “…[/FONT][FONT=&quot]due to a crack being found during an inspection of the keel beam. Detailed investigation was being carried out on the crack to accurately map its dimensions. Consequently, data from Boeing was required to carry out the repiar of the keel beam”.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The plane was taken out of service at 10pm the night before we were due to fly (at 10:30am), giving the airline at least 12 hours from finding the fault to re-route us or charter another plane (neither of which they did). The letter goes on to say the plane was successfully fixed and back in the air the following day.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Internet research has shown Boeing issued an alert for airlines to routinely check for problems in this type of plane’s keel beam in 2000 (It would take a mighty fine lawyer to argue that 11 years worth of prior knowledge could take an airline by that much surprise to claim “extraordinary circumstance”). Also, there was an alert issued from Boeing two weeks before our flight, urging airlines to check Boeing 737s for fuselage damage (not sure if this could be attributed to my keel beam problem, but even if it is, that’s two weeks they had to do this check and make alternative arrangements if they did find a problem).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Aside from this, we were not given any documents showing our rights at check-in, we were advised by check-in staff to purchase our own flights back to England and claim them back from the airline, and no “care” from the check-in staff. We were left stranded to make our own way home, incurring considerable costs in the process which the airline are refusing to pay for.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Reading the (very useful) information on the flightmole website, even if the crack found was extraordinary (The (non-legally binging) recitals of Reg 261/2004 says flight safety issues could be “extraordinary” although the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Wallentin-Hermann[/FONT][FONT=&quot] case clarified tech issues found during maintainance could not be classed as extraordinary), do you not think the airline had sufficient time (12 hours) to provide alternative transport instead of just cancelling the flight? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

ian41

At the moment only you and the airline has any idea of the dates, flights, destinations etc. There is no benefit in keeping this info a secret? It is up to you but in my view it is counterproductive. It might help other members to assist you but it is too late for this reply

Without knowing the info, I would say the following to you on what I (as a layman) might do as a non-lawyer if I was in your shoes.

1. Get legal advice or check out any legal expenses cover before you press any MCOL buttons.

2. If you do not want to do 1 above (most people don't), then before you go down the MCOL route, ensure that you have read sufficient threads (successful and non-successful) relating to others who have been through the process. Also read all the "Help" threads relating to MCOL - particularly on flightmole because it is a specialist forum. Check out kathryn's ezy thread in April 2010 which should have been successful but wasn't. Also Vac's complete saga with KLM in May this year. Read a selection of the successes and failures.

3. You are asking questions and making some statements which lead me to believe that you may not have grasped the necessary detail relating to EC Reg 261/2004 and/or the MCOL process. Just read it slowly, there is no rush and there are many nuances to be understood.

4. If your airline is easyJet, then do read the stickys at the top of the flightmole's easyJet's Claims section re the registered office address and also whether the defendant is easyJet Switzerland. If it is not EZY then I am not going to waste time guessing the name of the airline and whether your flight is eligible or not.

5. Assuming that it is an EU operating air carrier flying into an EU airport, then you are entitled to protection under EC Reg 261/2004 Article 8 and 9 regardless of compensation under Arts 5 & 7. The details are below. From Art 8.3, you will see that the operating air carrier should reimburse you if your alternate flight arrived at a different airport but this is limited to the costs of getting from the alternate airport to the original plus the flights. You will need to show that you were prudent in your travel arrangements and that the flight(s) booked were reasonable in the circumstances. If there are regular coaches then they will not be inclined to repay you for taking a taxi.

6. Your early posts suggested that you might be on a mini-crusade. Suggest that you need to focus solely on you and your party members and the facts without the emotion. For example and unfortunately many airlines do not hand out Art 14 notices to passengers and although it is wrong, there is no compensation payable to the pax for this "oversight".

7. "extraordinary circumstances". Yes you might have a reasonable case but it is not what either of us think, it is down to the District Judge in a hearing. In that hearing and if it is a UK airline, you will be faced with a barrister representing the airline who will argue his/her case strongly. If they defend the case at a hearing, then they believe that they have a very good chance of winning. Until the hearing date, they will badger you (very nicely) with threats on court costs etc because only very few cases are taken as far as a hearing - the fall out rate by claimants appears to be exceptionally high, so it is a good economic strategy for an airline.

8. From the above, if I was convinced that I had a good case then yes I would take legal action recognising that I would need to invest time and perseverance. However I believe that you need to do more research. For example, you have raised the question why didn't they re-book pax or get a replacement aircraft when they knew about this 10 hours (?) ahead of your departure. There could be many good reasons that I could think of. Perhaps the repair was expected to be completed in 2/4/6/8 hours. Perhaps there were no alternative aircraft available at a reasonable price. Presume that this problem occured earlier in the day at another airport. Perhaps the non-action by the airline was the cheapest way of dealing with the problem?

Article 8 Right to reimbursement or re-routing
1. Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall be offered the choice between:
(a) - reimbursement within seven days, by the means provided for in Article 7(3), of the full cost of the ticket at the price at which it was bought, for the part or parts of the journey not made, and for the part or parts already made if the flight is no longer serving any purpose in relation to the passenger's original travel plan, together with, when relevant,
- a return flight to the first point of departure, at the earliest opportunity;
(b) re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination at the earliest opportunity; or
(c) re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination at a later date at the passenger's convenience, subject to availability of seats.
2. Paragraph 1(a) shall also apply to passengers whose flights form part of a package, except for the right to reimbursement where such right arises under Directive 90/314/EEC.
3. When, in the case where a town, city or region is served by several airports, an operating air carrier offers a passenger a flight to an airport alternative to that for which the booking was made, the operating air carrier shall bear the cost of transferring the passenger from that alternative airport either to that for which the booking was made, or to another close-by destination agreed with the passenger.


Article 9 Right to care
1. Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall be offered free of charge:
(a) meals and refreshments in a reasonable relation to the waiting time;
(b) hotel accommodation in cases
- where a stay of one or more nights becomes necessary, or
- where a stay additional to that intended by the passenger becomes necessary;
(c) transport between the airport and place of accommodation (hotel or other).
2. In addition, passengers shall be offered free of charge two telephone calls, telex or fax messages, or e-mails.
3. In applying this Article, the operating air carrier shall pay particular attention to the needs of persons with reduced mobility and any persons accompanying them, as well as to the needs of unaccompanied children.

I hope the above might be of use to you in your endeavours.

airplane500

Thanks for the advice Ian41. I'll do more research then regarding legal costs, and read some more of the success/failiure stories on flightmole.
I have got a lot of questions, and you're right in saying maybe I don't understand EC Reg 261/2004 enough (yet), but the more I read, the more I add to the list of things the airline have got wrong.
It may seem like a "mini-crusade" as you put it, but if I am right, the airline(s) can get away with lying to all the other passengers, some of whom will not know their rights or have the time to follow through, or be scared of a large businesses throwing ambiguous legal jargon around - why should they get away with that?