Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

Mark2spark

SimonLugs wrote: »

I'm sure it was about 5pm which again is earlier than the normal flight times. That was on time from memory though.

Y do u ask that?

I believe Richard is trying to establish the time you returned to the UK, so the turnaround time for the plane can be worked out approx etc

ManPants

Hello

I was delayed by 24 hours coming back from Cape Verde in 2008. We checked out of our room sat in the lobby and waited to go to the airport and were delayed by 24 hours as a stewardess on the flight out had had hot coffee spilt over her and had to re-route to Tenerife. That then left this Thomson Holiday flight one person down for flying so had to wait to have another stewardess flown out. We were delayed by exactly 24 hours.

Am i right in thinking that as it was a UK to a non - ec then back flight that it will not be covered?

Stupotstu

SimonLugs

They gave everyone a meal voucher for dinner/breakfast. I cant remember how much though to be honest.

I do remember we had to buy breakfast and dinner as my daughter is Type 1 diabetic.

And i also remember there were alot of arguements with people and the staff. One man was refused the flight due to his aggressive behaviour (i witnessed it and he did step over the line but i also felt for him due to the situation esp as his family then had to fly out alone, he was escorted out by armed police).

It was also getting to the point with things that they were talking about us flying the next day and stating in hotels.

What advice would you give me on this situation please guys?

The bit that is worrying me is it says it is 1.20pm scheculed flight and left on time which it definate was not.

SimonLugs

Mark2spark wrote: »

It's certainly worth a call to Charter and see if the can provide you with a copy of the original booking Simon.
To achieve compensation is going to take a lot of leg work on your part, be under no illusions

Do you mean alot of work as in going to court etc?

If thats the case i think i'll leave it and just let it go as had a good holiday anyway lol!!

SimonLugs

richardw wrote: »

Did they stop to pick other passengers up from another airport on the way out to Sanford?

No it went from cardiff straight to Sanford.

richardw

stupotstu wrote: »

...were delayed by 24 hours as a stewardess on the flight out had had hot coffee spilt over her and had to re-route to Tenerife. That then left this Thomson Holiday flight one person down for flying so had to wait to have another stewardess flown out. We were delayed by exactly 24 hours...

Do you think these are 'Ordinary Circumstances' for a flight delay?

Mark2spark

SimonLugs wrote: »

Do you mean alot of work as in going to court etc?

If thats the case i think i'll leave it and just let it go as had a good holiday anyway lol!!

It may well end up in court. Who knows if Monarch are going to hold their hands up.
You need to decide if the simple letter writing exercise, at the start of things, like attempting to establish the flight numbers and other details, *before* writing to Monarch and asking for the reasons for the flight delay, are worth your time and effort.
Because if Monarch then hide behind an excuse of extraordinary circumstances, then Court might be the only other step. But 3 of you (?) would be €1800. Not a fiver lol
So probably worth the initial steps.

beefturnmail

I was delayed overnight several years back when Ryanair cancelled my flight. After (much fight) I got them to refund mty expenses (hotel etc.) but I never managed to claim compensation out of them. I Took it to the CAA and got the below response in 2008. What do you reckon my chances are of resurrecting? I'm still pretty disgusted about the way Ryanair treated us - slung us out of the airport at 11pm at night in the pouring rain with no assitance, then took several months and a prolonged fight to get them to even refund expenses - so I'd like to get them to pay if at all possible:

Final response from CAA:

Regarding your complaint on your cancelled flight on 25 June 2007 from Salzburg to London Stansted the airline gave a written statement - including the technical report as proof for Art. 5/3 of the EC-Regulation 261/2004 - for clarification of the facts. It contains inter alia: “We wish to confirm that unfortunately due to a lighting strike during a flight, the flight FR306 from Stansted to Salzburg on the 25th of June 2007 had to be diverted to Frankfurt Hahn at mid-flight. It was planned to take another aircraft from Frankfurt Hahn to Salzburg to operate the flight FR307, however the Salzburg Airport refused to extend their curfew, and as such FR307 had to be cancelled. We trust that you will find that this cancellation was completely outside of our control, and as such no compensation under the Article 7 of the Regulation (EC) 261/2004 is due. These passengers were re-accommodated on the next available flight, and we have already refunded Mr xxx his receipted expenses of 144.76GBP as per the Article 9 of the EU261/2004. As such, we consider this case settled.” In the legal framework of the EC-Regulation 261/2004 this statement is correct. Furthermore wed like to point out to the following: One has to bear in mind that the safety of flight operations has to be the overarching priority. Therefore technical deficiencies (and weather conditions as well) and their consequences on aircraft operations must be taken into account. A lightning strike is of course an unpredictable event (see Art. 5/3 of the Regulation). As a result the operating air carrier is not obliged to pay the compensation. Furthermore the air carrier intended to but could not take another aircraft to Salzburg because of the curfew of the airport.

Mark2spark

stupotstu wrote: »

Hello

I was delayed by 24 hours coming back from Cape Verde in 2008. We checked out of our room sat in the lobby and waited to go to the airport and were delayed by 24 hours as a stewardess on the flight out had had hot coffee spilt over her and had to re-route to Tenerife. That then left this Thomson Holiday flight one person down for flying so had to wait to have another stewardess flown out. We were delayed by exactly 24 hours.

Am i right in thinking that as it was a UK to a non - ec then back flight that it will not be covered?

Stupotstu

No, you're wrong on that.
But IMO your claim would fail as a burning incident on a member of cabin crew is going to be called as an extraordinary circumstance.

Mark2spark

beefturnmail wrote: »

I was delayed overnight several years back when Ryanair cancelled my flight. After (much fight) I got them to refund mty expenses (hotel etc.) but I never managed to claim compensation out of them. I Took it to the CAA and got the below response in 2008. What do you reckon my chances are of resurrecting? I'm still pretty disgusted about the way Ryanair treated us - slung us out of the airport at 11pm at night in the pouring rain with no assitance, then took several months and a prolonged fight to get them to even refund expenses - so I'd like to get them to pay if at all possible:

Final response from CAA:

Regarding your complaint on your cancelled flight on 25 June 2007 from Salzburg to London Stansted the airline gave a written statement - including the technical report as proof for Art. 5/3 of the EC-Regulation 261/2004 - for clarification of the facts. It contains inter alia: “We wish to confirm that unfortunately due to a lighting strike during a flight, the flight FR306 from Stansted to Salzburg on the 25th of June 2007 had to be diverted to Frankfurt Hahn at mid-flight. It was planned to take another aircraft from Frankfurt Hahn to Salzburg to operate the flight FR307, however the Salzburg Airport refused to extend their curfew, and as such FR307 had to be cancelled. We trust that you will find that this cancellation was completely outside of our control, and as such no compensation under the Article 7 of the Regulation (EC) 261/2004 is due. These passengers were re-accommodated on the next available flight, and we have already refunded Mr Collier his receipted expenses of 144.76GBP as per the Article 9 of the EU261/2004. As such, we consider this case settled.” In the legal framework of the EC-Regulation 261/2004 this statement is correct. Furthermore wed like to point out to the following: One has to bear in mind that the safety of flight operations has to be the overarching priority. Therefore technical deficiencies (and weather conditions as well) and their consequences on aircraft operations must be taken into account. A lightning strike is of course an unpredictable event (see Art. 5/3 of the Regulation). As a result the operating air carrier is not obliged to pay the compensation. Furthermore the air carrier intended to but could not take another aircraft to Salzburg because of the curfew of the airport.

Zero. (sorry to say )