Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

greigster

demo007 wrote: »

Hi im just about to get the legal team on my home insurance involved. Out of interest what did you say to them in your email? Thanks

Just outlined the facts as per my post and now they will review it and make a decision as to whether they will take it on or not

cubegame

Centipede100 wrote: »

The words from the airline don't quite accurately reflect the judgment handed down by the ECJ in both the Wallentin-Hermann case and the Sturgeon case. The ECJ refer to technical issues thus:

Wallentin-Hermann

1. 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 a technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation of a flight is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision, unless that problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control. The Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, is not decisive for the interpretation of the grounds of exemption under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004.

2. The frequency of the technical problems experienced by an air carrier is not in itself a factor from which the presence or absence of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 can be concluded.

3. The fact that an air carrier has complied with the minimum rules on maintenance of an aircraft cannot in itself suffice to establish that that carrier has taken ‘all reasonable measures’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 and, therefore, to relieve that carrier of its obligation to pay compensation provided for by Articles 5(1)(c) and 7(1) of that regulation.

Sturgeon

3. Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation or delay of a flight is not covered by the concept of "extraordinary circumstances" within the meaning of that provision, unless that problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control.

Perhaps you could compare the words provided by the airline and those quoted above and decide for yourself whether you believe the airline's version!

I wouldn't accept the voucher in your shoes...!

Thanks. I'll have a think about it. I probably would be ok with a more generous voucher offer to save any effort of court action.

In case I consider the option of making a court claim does it matter than we actually only ending up at our final destination an hour late (as we were rebooked on a later connection with a much shorter waiting time at Charlotte)?

shazybabe

Hi,
We were booked to fly from EMA to Rhodes 3rd Oct 2012 dep 08.20
TCX5006.
On arrival at EMA at 05.15 we were informed we could not check in as we were being taken by coach to Manchester. We were handed a letter which stated - 'due to disruption within the fleet the aircraft operating your flight is no longer available. Our Operations Department have sourced an alternative aircraft which will depart from Manchester.
Your flight number will remain the same. Your new estimated time of departure will be 1340 local time'.

We did receive refreshment vouchers at Manchester for £7pp and our ATD was 1349.

Would it be worth claiming compensation for this delay?
I did contact one of the on-line companies to see if they could help me, almost a week ago and still no reply to date.
Thank you for any help/advice.

Conan

blindman wrote: »

Is this the flight that is mentioned at FlightMole?

Hi Blindman,

no mine was a Luton-Gdansk in Juky this year.

Thanks for the link though, gives me some hope:j

Conan

Centipede100 wrote: »

Wizzair are a Hungarian airline with no place of business in the UK so far as I know. That being the case, you may find it difficult to bring proceedings in the UK against Wizzair as there is no office or place of business on which court documents can be served.

In that case your only option may be to start proceedings in the country where the flight departed. You may find this is easier if you take advantage of the European Small Claims Procedure: http://www.ukecc.net/read_write/file...l%20Claims.pdf.

It may even allow you to make a claim in the UK but I am not that familiar with the process so cannot comment further.

Time limits are a matter for the court system in each member state so Wizzair may be correct in what they state in their Contract of Carriage.

Hi Centipede,

thank you for your reply and information.

Mine was a flight London Luton - Gdansk, in July 2012.

I understand I will have to address the claim to the Hungarian address first, then in case of no answer or rejection, try the CAA first and then legal action in the UK office for small claims as a last resort.

Any further suggestion welcome

gerhon

I cant find anything about compensation for delays to flights of over 3 hours - yet an article was promised in this week's MSE newsletter ( 31/10/12 ) in the MSE dated 24/10/12.
Have I missed it?

blindman

gerhon wrote: »

I cant find anything about compensation for delays to flights of over 3 hours - yet an article was promised in this week's MSE newsletter ( 31/10/12 ) in the MSE dated 24/10/12.
Have I missed it?

Doesn't take much to find the MSE article as it's linked in the first post of this thread.:rotfl:

An update is due out-but has been delayed

Try reading the two threads for information.

delvey

Centipede100 wrote: »

In your case, this is a cancellation not a delay. It is a cancellation because the aircraft did not fly as previously planned from EMA to Rhodes but from MAN. It doesn't matter that the flight number remained the same.

Google Thomas Harbord v Thomas Cook to see what the judge thought in that case. No surprises that it involves the same airline, they have previous form for doing this sort of thing.

I would agree
Brief google search found that in this case the court found as follows:

Mr Harbord's flight was cancelled, not delayed. This was because:

A flight from Manchester to Vancouver is not the same thing as a flight from Stansted to Vancouver.
A time differential of 24 hours is indicative more of cancellation than delay.
The fact that the flight had the same flight number had no bearing on the case.

Obviously a full search yourself will find all the details

Mark2spark

cubegame wrote: »

Although they have denied liability for compensation they have offered us 2 x $600 travel vouchers as a gesture of goodwill.

What is everyone's opinion on this one? Accept the voucher or do we have cause for argument? I have found examples of US Airways customers who state that the gesture of goodwill was increased when they initially rejected it......

Reading through some of your following posts, it would appear that your arrival time was 'only' an hour later than planned.
That's assuming that the connecting flight was all part and parcel of the same booking?
If so, you don't have a claim IMO. The wording of the EU case is based on the eventual arrival time from what I can see, not from the delayed departure. Weird really but that's how I see it.
Therefore the offer of flight vouchers appears generous.

shazybabe

Many thanks Centipede and Delvey, appreciate your help.