Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

ian41

luci1838 wrote: »

Thanks for the above Ian41.

Please see Virgin's response to my most email, in blue and quotations which leaves me uncertain whether, even with a favourable ECJ ruling, I can build a case.

"Virgin Atlantic is very proud of our safety and maintenance records and we maintain our aircraft above and beyond the minimum requirements outlined by the CAA. The technical fault that caused the delay to your flight was most certainly an unforeseen safety shortcoming that could not have been avoided.

The European Court ruled that a technical delay cannot be deemed as an extraordinary circumstance if minimum safety and maintenance requirements have not been met."

Does anyone know whether that final paragraph is correct? I wasn't aware of this caveat.

"I’m afraid, as our maintenance records are commercially sensitive documents, I will not be providing you with a copy of these,"

which means I won't know whether they have maintained minimum standards of maintenance.

Any ideas most welcome.

My view. It's a bluff - and not entirely unexpected. The more an airline denies, obstructs and bluffs, the more potential claimants lose interest. You will be thinking, do I want to continue with this hassle?

I read a statistic somewhere that on average, less than 2% of passengers on an affected flight follow their complaint through to full settlement. So the tactics work!

Virgin are counting on you dropping any proposed action once the ECJ ruling has been handed down - even when/if it supports Sturgeon..

If Virgin wish to continue with a defence of "e.c" under Art 5.3, then they have to disclose the reason and prove it. Equally, in the interests of natural justice, you need to be able to review the "proof" that Virgin provides. If they do not want to provide any evidence to back up their claim, then they cannot support a defence of "e.c." It's quite simple really.

So the District Judge will not be impressed with Virgin's response to you. Certified copies of that aircraft's tech log for (say) three days is all that is required - and in reality that cannot be commercially sensitive. It just sounds good and is there to put doubts in your mind.

Once the ruling is handed down (supporting Sturgeon), I would be filing via MCOL. How determined are you to see it through?

Dreamscometrue

Hello everyone,

I would like to thank everybody who contributes to this thread. I'm jumping up and down here. I have just received settlement of £515 from Cubana. What a result. Thank you.:j

Dreamscometrue

Thank you very much Ian41:j

ian41

Dreamscometrue wrote: »

Thank you very much Ian41:j

Well what a lovely Christmas surprise for you - so they do come true!. lt is also mildly encouraging that an airline will pay out for a long delay before the ECJ ruling.

For the forum's benefit, whcih Cubana address did you use when you wrote the letter and what date was it? I suppose that they would have had to forward it to their Head Office for approval and that could account for the delay.

Did they write a letter with the cheque? If yes, what date and where was it from and did they say anything of interest?

Congratulations again.

Dreamscometrue

Hello Ian41,

I wrote to the Skylines Village address in E14. I don't recall the exact date I wrote to them, the letter is on my work PC but sometime in October. I'm sure that they would have had to contact Havana before issuing the cheque. They have written back from the Skylines Village address. Their letter is dated 14/11/11 but I guess that's a type on their part and that they meant 14/12/11.
It reads;

'We apologize for the inconveniences you suffered following the flight delay due to technical problems of the aircraft operating flight CU401 due to leave London Gatwick with destination Havana the 07th September 2011.

Please find enclosed a cheque for GBP515.00 (equivalent of EUR600.00) in accordance to the EC Regulations 261/2004 Art. 4.3. as full and final settlement as a reimbursement under your rights of subrogation.

We value your custom and we hope to have you on board our flights again soon.

Please once again, accept our apologies on behalf of Cubana de Aviacion for all the inconveniences you experienced.'


Merry Xmas everyone and the best of luck with your battles. Yippee!!!:j

ian41

Dreamscometrue wrote: »

Hello Ian41,

I wrote to the Skylines Village address in E14. I don't recall the exact date I wrote to them, the letter is on my work PC but sometime in October. I'm sure that they would have had to contact Havana before issuing the cheque. They have written back from the Skylines Village address. Their letter is dated 14/11/11 but I guess that's a type on their part and that they meant 14/12/11.
It reads;

'We apologize for the inconveniences you suffered following the flight delay due to technical problems of the aircraft operating flight CU401 due to leave London Gatwick with destination Havana the 07th September 2011.

Please find enclosed a cheque for GBP515.00 (equivalent of EUR600.00) in accordance to the EC Regulations 261/2004 Art. 4.3. as full and final settlement as a reimbursement under your rights of subrogation.

We value your custom and we hope to have you on board our flights again soon.

Please once again, accept our apologies on behalf of Cubana de Aviacion for all the inconveniences you experienced.'


Merry Xmas everyone and the best of luck with your battles. Yippee!!!:j

Thanks for that.

If other members want to follow the saga, the key posts are # 1154 and 1155 on 8 October 2011. The first is here

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=47518255&postcount=1154

ian41

ian41 wrote: »

I will try to put something together before the end of the week - as I have travel plans over the next few weeks and therefore will be an infrequent visitor to the forum over that period.

theboots

I will put something together but it will be sometime next week. Sorry.

luci1838

dzug1 wrote: »

I'm intrigued as to how would would know even if you did see the records

I wouldn't have a clue dzug1 but I have an uncle who is a aircraft engineer with 20+yrs experience so it's a case of "I know a man who can".

Thanks to you, Richardw (I will look up that case Richard) and Ian41 for your replies..I definitely do have the energy and desire to take this further so I'll wait for this ECJ ruling. Season's greeetings to you all.

ian41

luci1838 wrote: »

dzug1 wrote: »

I'm intrigued as to how would would know even if you did see the records

I wouldn't have a clue dzug1 but I have an uncle who is a aircraft engineer with 20+yrs experience so it's a case of "I know a man who can".

Thanks to you, Richardw (I will look up that case Richard) and Ian41 for your replies..I definitely do have the energy and desire to take this further so I'll wait for this ECJ ruling. Season's greeetings to you all.

Regarding dzug1's comment, I also have a number of the right contacts in this area so no, its not going to be a problem interpreting the information.

I was unsure whether richardw's post was intended for you or dzug - perhaps richard will enlighten us? Sometimes a one-liner can be a problem to interpret due to brevity.

I am pleased to read your penultimate comment - please make a diary note to check back on a regular basis.

theboots

ian41 wrote: »

theboots

I will put something together but it will be sometime next week. Sorry.

No problem, I appreciate the assistance.