Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

ian41

airplane500

I agree with your admirable sentiments but I am a cynical pragmatist. The only way that you can hurt an airline is to make them pay compensation that is due. In my experience, over 90% of claimants give up after four or five emails - yes partly due to the worry of taking legal action but also due to the lack of fire and determination to weave together and prepare a proper case against the airline. To do that, emotions have to be shelved, research has to be completed and even then with an excellent case, you do need a slice of luck e.g. has the DJ had the time (or interest) to read and fully understand your witness statement?

Finally, and for the last time, you should post your flight number, date etc. There were many others who should have been on that same flight and if they do a Google Search, they will come to the conclusion that no-one else is chasing compensation or recovery of their flight costs. You would kick yourself if someone else has achieved a better result or obtained additional info which could be valuable to you. It's really a no-brainer as there is no downside.

Whatever you decide to do, good luck.

airplane500

Ian41, flight cancelled was bmibaby ww1104 geneva-birmingham 10:35am 16 April 2011.

Dreamscometrue

richardw wrote: »

Can you edit it please to the facts.

Hello all,

Cubana Flight CU401 London Gatwick - Holguin & Havana, Cuba should have left at 1700 on September 7th but departed over 47 hours later on September 9th at 16:10

The airline cites technical problems (there was a huge drum under the plane & a man emerged wearing gloves & googles, they sent for parts from Madrid) in its letter. They say that we were told to leave the plane on the 8th due to night time flying noise restrictions.

Insufficient transport (one coach) was arranged to take people to hotels on the 7th. I had to wait for the coach to return. There was not enough room for my luggage. I waited until after 3am for my bags. The hotel was too full to serve breakfast & we all had to leave at 8am.

On the 8th Cubana told passengers to go to the Hilton hotel at Gatwick but they had not arranged sufficient rooms and we were left waiting in the foyer for hours on end. After tears I finally got a room for 3 hours.

Just after midnight we were sat on the plane ready to go and then told to return to the airport due to night time flying restrictions. We were told that the baggage handlers had left for the night and that it was too late to arrange accomodation.

The flight departure time had moved to 7am. We tried to sleep on thin camping matresses on the airport floor.

In the morning there was no representative available. The flight time on the board was updated to 1300.

Cubana were not available at all either in the airport or on the phone.

Finally left on the 9th at 16:10

Thanks for reading

ian41

Dreamscometrue

Dreamscometrue wrote: »

Hello All,

Thanks for reading. I think my travel insurance will only pay out around £36. I'd really like to get something back for the 2 days I lost if it's possible.

There is no simple mechanism to recover money for time lost, missed nights in hotels etc. So forget that.

However, in principle, you would be entitled to claim Euro 600 per passenger from the ailine for the long delay of your outward flight under EC Reg 261/2004 and the subsequent ECJ "Sturgeon Judgment" dated 19/11/2009. This ruling gave passengers the same entitlement to compensation for long delays as previously given for flight cancellations. Under both cancellations and long delays, the airline can avoid paying compensation if it can prove that the delay was due to "extraordinary circumstances ("e.c").

It is difficult for an airline to claim and prove "e.c." following two rulings by the ECJ - Wallentin-Hermann (22/12/2008) and once again, Sturgeon etc (19/11/2009). As I cannot post links, you will be able to read those rulings as they are referenced earlier in this thread.

In your shoes, I would write to Cubana and claim your compensation of Euro 600 in a very simple email or letter along the following lines

Dear Sirs

Quote your flight number, date, e-ticket number and booking reference

Under EC Reg 261/2004 and the subsequent Sturgeon Judgment dated 19 November 2009, and Following the long delay of approximately 47 hours on the above flight, I am claiming Euro 600 per passenger in my party, totalling Euro XXXX.

Should you wish to claim extraordinary circumstances, I ask you to submit proof to me that meets or exceeds the very high standards set out by the ECJ in both the Wallentin-Hermann and Sturgeon rulings dated 22/12/2008 and 19/11/2009 respectively.

I am giving you 21 days from today's date to send me a cheque in full settlement. Failing that, I reserve the right to take legal action to recover this sum without further notice.

Yours faithfully
XXXXXXX

In addition to this, you may have spent money on EC Reg 261/2004 Article 9 Right to Care expenses which can be reclaimed assuming you have receipts. I have detailed the provisions of this in an earlier post to airplane500 (see post #1150) so you can read it there. If you have incurred such costs as stated you should claim them in the same letter by inserting another paragraph referring to EC Reg 261/2004 Art 9 Right to Care and listing the expenses. The item list is quite specific.

Now the airline will respond in one of two ways. First they might send you a cheque. Second, and more likely, they are likely to refer to the fact that in English courts, most claims for compensation relating to long delays are currently stayed pending an appeal against the Sturgeon ruling. This is peculiar to England and Wales and not the rest of the EU where claims are being met. At some time between now and say 3 years, the ECJ will rule and once they have ruled on this appeal, then those passengers who have pending claims will be able to chase for their money. There is always a possibility that a Cuban airline may just pay you so you need to write to them.

If it was me, I would call the CAA on 020 7240 6061 (Monday-Thursday 0930-1400 only) and ask them if they have an address for Cubana Airlines in the UK that can receive legal papers. Worst case is that they may say no.

If that is the case suggest you write or email to Cubana Airlines, Unit 50, Skyline Village, Limeharbour Rd, Docklands, London E14 9TS. The email appears to be [EMAIL="cubanasales@cubanacan.co.uk"]cubanasales@cubanacan.co.uk[/EMAIL]. Tel: 020 7538 5933 Fax: 020 7093 1538. I suspect that this may be a freight address but you need to do some chasing on that.

Oh yes. Your letter email should exclude any emotional stuff. Everyone gets very upset when their travel plans go awry so airlines will not blink when you tell them that you cried or were upset. It sounds harsh but if you want to start to collect money be businesslike and stick to the key facts only. At some point, you may have to consider legal action but that is some way down the road.

That should get you started but the best course of action is to seek professional legal help. Failing that, the above should help you.

ian41

airplane500 wrote: »

Ian41, flight cancelled was bmibaby ww1104 geneva-birmingham 10:35am 16 April 2011.

Right. That helps to explain the problem. Although BMI baby flies from numerous UK destinations including Birmingham, East Midlands, Manchester, Stansted, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newquay to many destinations further afield in Europe, at the last count they were doing this with only 14 aircraft - 12 x 737-300 and 2 x 737-500. This means that if anything goes wrong/off-schedule, they along with other low-cost airlines tend to cancel either sectors on a point-to-point network or pairs of outward and return flights.

Specifically, from Birmingham on 16 April, BMI baby were due to fly to (and from) 8 airports that day including 3 flights scheduled to depart at 0700 to Amsterdam, Faro and Geneva - all using 737-300s. They would have required 3 aircraft to be available overnight to complete those flights. If one 737 was out of service (as they allege), one pair of flights would have been cancelled and, a pound to a penny, it would have been the flights with the lightest pair of pax loads. If I was a betting man, I would have thought that BMI baby's last flights of the season to GVA that weekend, would be rather short of pax (end of ski season, no return flights to BHX from GVA the following weekend etc). So I would expect that a commercial decision was taken to scrub the pair of flights from BHX>GVA>BHX rather than AMS or FAO.

Of course, airlines have also been known to cancel pairs of flights for commercial reasons i.e without a possible excuse of a damaged aircraft- which is why EC Reg 261/2004 was introduced.

I am more than slightly suspicious. In your correspondence, did BMI baby refer to the actual damaged aircraft by its reg number i.e. G-TOYF? If so please tell me what it is.

If not, may I suggest the following. Write/email BMI baby and ask them (a) for the Registration number of the faulty aircraft originally allocated to fly BHX>GVA>BHX on 16 April 2011 and (b) a copy of the Tech Log for this aircraft covering the period from 0001 15 April until it entered commercial service again. Say that at this stage, you will accept a photostat copy but if the matter proceeds to court, you will request a Certified Copy of this Tech Log and will ask the County Court to note that you have asked for this to be supplied to you as basic evidence to possibly support BMI baby's assertions. At this stage you can say, BMI baby have asserted what happened but have not offered any proof whatsoever - as required under EC Reg 261/2004. Once again, you will draw the District Judges attention to this omission if matters proceed to court.

You could also inform BMI baby that you are requesting clear evidence from them to demonstrate that (a) as their total fleet consists of 737s, (how) can they confirm that the aircraft taken out of service, was the aircraft allocated to fly BHX>GVA>BHX on 16 April and (b) this decision to cancel ww1103 and 1104 was not a commercial decision taken in lieu of cancelling flights to Amsterdam or Faro which were due to depart from BHX at the same time on 16 April?.

In my view, it is important that you are seen to have asked such questions and given them the opportunity to respond before commencing any form of legal action. You are building a case and at the same time demonstrating how reasonable you have been.

Dreamscometrue

Many thanks ian41 for your assistance. I've amended my letter and will post updates. Fingers crossed!

airplane500

Ian41, BMIBaby sent a letter stating the following a few months back:
"Aircraft G-TOYF was taken out of service at 22:00 on 15th April 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 and this was successfully repaired and the aircraft returned to service at 08:30 on 17th April."

Are airlines allowed to cancel like that then, if it's not commercially viable? And if they did need to cancel for commercial reasons, they coudl have done it earlier, let us know, and got us seats Easyjet rather than leaving us stranded?

Also are they obliged to provide the tech log for the flight?

Many thanks for all the comprehensive help you've given me!

ktitanya

Hello, Back on 31/8/11, I was travelling to Odessa Airport in Ukraine with Malev Airlines. This was a 2 part flight leaving London Gatwick at 8:55 am on Flight MA613 arriving at Budapest at 12.15 pm and then onto Flight MA130 from Budapest to Odessa, Ukraine to depart 12:55 pm arriving at 3.25pm.

The Gatwick website stated no problems and no one explained any problems when I checked in.
When in the departure lounge, we were then informed that the departure time would be 9:30. This came and went and then got told that the flight was changing to a BA flight on BA4451 and would leave at 9:55.

When I asked them what would happen with my connection flight, I was told that they would make up time in the air and it will only take 1 hour 40 instead of 2 hours 20 to fly to Budapest and they would hold the connection flight.



When I arrived at Budapest, I was absolutely distressed and angry to find that my connection flight had already left. I was told that I could either stay in Budapest or you could arrange a new flight onto Odessa.



I had no choice as I already had a taxi waiting for me at Odessa to take me 300 kilometres to my home.



It was then made worse by telling me that the only flight was from Budapest to Kiev and then an internal flight from Kiev to Odessa. I would not arrive until 9.30pm. This was 6 hours after my original arrival time.


I sent a letter to the airline claiming compensation and stating that I am aware of the Eu Regulation EC 261/2004. They replied that this regualtion did not apply to delays.

I sent a reply to them quoting the Regulation and the fact the I am entitled to compensation on flights that are delayed over 3 hours or 1500 kilometres. They again replied stating they are not prepared to listen.

I therefore have sent my complaint to the CAA staing all of the above and send them all of the mails response.

I have now had the following response back from the CAA:

I have had today the opportunity to review your claim and I would like to explain that unfortunately, EC Regulation 261/2004 does not mention compensation for flight delays. However, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) made a decision on 19th November 2009 in the case of Sturgeon v Condor Flugdienst GmbH and Bock and others v Air France SA (19 November 2009). Its decision suggests that passengers who are delayed suffer a similar damage to the damage suffered by passengers whose flights have been cancelled and therefore the compensation should be the same.
Some airlines in the UK have requested clarification about the above ruling through the UK courts and on 10 August 2010, the Administrative Court of the High Court of Justice granted permission for questions relating to the Sturgeon ruling to be referred to the European Court of Justice. The Court also placed a “stay” on any further proceedings in the UK until the ECJ has made its ruling.

It is likely that, in the knowledge of the referral to the ECJ, airlines would not offer compensation for flight delays. And, because of the “stay”, the CAA would not have the back up of the ultimate sanction of prosecution in court.
I regret that, for the time being and pending the new ruling by the ECJ, we are unable to ask airlines for compensation for flight delays.

Where can we go from here? It does not make sense that customers from the UK are restricted from gaining compensation for their time and money lost when the flight company are the ones at fault. It makes even less sense when the rest of Europe seem to be able to claim.

You thoughts will be welcome
Thanks

Voyager2002

ktitanya wrote: »

Hello, Back on 31/8/11, I was travelling to Odessa Airport in Ukraine with Malev Airlines. This was a 2 part flight leaving London Gatwick at 8:55 am on Flight MA613 arriving at Budapest at 12.15 pm and then onto Flight MA130 from Budapest to Odessa, Ukraine to depart 12:55 pm arriving at 3.25pm.

The Gatwick website stated no problems and no one explained any problems when I checked in.
When in the departure lounge, we were then informed that the departure time would be 9:30. This came and went and then got told that the flight was changing to a BA flight on BA4451 and would leave at 9:55.

When I asked them what would happen with my connection flight, I was told that they would make up time in the air and it will only take 1 hour 40 instead of 2 hours 20 to fly to Budapest and they would hold the connection flight.



snip

The CAA response is wrong: your flight from Gatwick was cancelled, and your onward journey from Budapest was on a flight with a different number from that on which you had been booked. You were therefore the victim of cancellation and/or denied boarding (they obviously did not allow you to board your booked flight from Budapest).

While the EU Directive says nothing about delays, it most certainly does state that compensation must be paid when flights are cancelled and / or boarding is denied. So I suggest that you re-word your complaint in these terms, and if necessary prosecute Malev in the English small claims court.

ian41

airplane500 wrote: »

Ian41, BMIBaby sent a letter stating the following a few months back:
"Aircraft G-TOYF was taken out of service at 22:00 on 15th April 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 and this was successfully repaired and the aircraft returned to service at 08:30 on 17th April."

Are airlines allowed to cancel like that then, if it's not commercially viable? And if they did need to cancel for commercial reasons, they coudl have done it earlier, let us know, and got us seats Easyjet rather than leaving us stranded?

Also are they obliged to provide the tech log for the flight?

Many thanks for all the comprehensive help you've given me!

I will give you more info in a few days time