Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

richardw

Cornball, Air Transat is Canadian and your flight was from Canada, that's a double non EU and your flight ain't covered under EU Reg 261/2004.

Perhaps consider other possibilities of recompense.

Mark2spark

Andy_International wrote: »

So, I have just received this from Monarch as 'advice' before filling out the formal form requesting compensation:

You may not be entitled to compensation despite suffering a delayed flight where the delay was caused by Extraordinary Circumstances. The CAA has issued guidance on the meaning of Extraordinary Circumstances as including but not limited to the following:
a) Aircraft technical faults discovered just before flight or during the flight concerned;
b) Damage to the aircraft caused by:
 Acts of sabotage or terrorism;
 Bird strike;
 Ground incurred damage (i.e. baggage truck, air bridges);
 Lightning strike;
 Pepperpot event (eg large hailstones);
 Severe turbulence;
 Heavy landing; or
 Foreign object damage;
c) Catastrophic engine failure or engine surge;
d) De-pressurisation;
e) Electronic hardware / software ‘conflicts’ which indicate that the aircraft is not fit to fly and which cannot easily be cleared;
f) Hidden manufacturing defect that impinges on flight safety;
g) Meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned;
h) Security risks;
i) Unexpected flight safety shortcomings;
j) Strikes; or
k) Political instability.

I'm trying to think if there could be a reason why a plane could be delayed that is not included on that list...

Monarch have added their own version of what they think the CAA are saying. I think you should complain to the CAA that Monarch are deliberately mis-quoting them.
The CAA say:
http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=2211&pageid=14023

"The Regulation that covers passengers rights when their flights are delayed or cancelled gives the following examples as such circumstances:

· Political instability
· Bad weather
· Security risks
· Unexpected flight safety shortcomings
· Strikes that affect the operation of an air carrier
· Air traffic management decisions "

Neither does the CAA list what *exactly* are extraordinary circumstances.
http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=2211&pageid=14037

I can't find Monarchs list anywhere on CAA site. The only place i've seen that list is on MSE where people copy/paste it.

Mark2spark

Cornball wrote: »

Air Transat have EU based branches of their company and I bought the tickets from their EU based branch. I'm not giving up yet, doing more research. But thanks.

Is your way of thinking Cornball, that because they have ticket offices within the EU, that somehow makes them an EU registered airline?
Interesting.

Mark2spark

rusty_frog wrote: »

Flightstats appear to give arrival times as "gate" times which are more realistic.

However, if we plan to use the above as part of our evidence, will it not confuse things if airline use touchdown?

Obviously airlines will use the touchdown time if it brings them under the three hour delay time limit. It's a tough call really if the only dispute at the end of the day is having to get a court to decide what the *real* defining moment of arrival is.
IMO it wouldn't be fair on the airlines to include waiting time to clear immigration as it's beyond their control.
But it isn't until after that, that you get to go to baggage reclaim. And sometimes that can be an hour to wait there, - IMO this *is* within the airlines control, and I would have no hesitation in arguing in Court that the final arrival time is the time that you can freely walk out from departures having collected your checked in baggage, it's all part and parcel of the flight IMO.
Ridiculous for an airline to claim that you have arrived whilst the plane is still slowing down on the runway.

Mark2spark

Direct from the CAA website:

"We will not take up your complaint under the following circumstances:

If it is about a cancellation, delay or an instance of denied boarding and your flight is departing from another (not UK) EU country you will need to contact the relevant national enforcement body for aviation in that country."

So, passengers on a Monarch flight from Majorca to London, that have been delayed over 5 hours, can't look to the CAA for any assistance in dealing with the airline when they start lying about the reason for the delay?

Mark2spark

richardw wrote: »

Cornball, Air Transat is Canadian and your flight was from Canada, that's a double non EU and your flight ain't covered under EU Reg 261/2004.

The CAA say:


We will not take up your complaint under the following circumstances:

Complaints about delays, cancellations and denied boarding in relation to flights coming from outside the EU to an EU country and on a non-EU carrier need to be taken to the airline directly as EU rules on denied boarding/delay/cancellation do not apply. We can only provide advice and assistance on these claims to UK residents where the ticket was purchased in the UK.

Mark2spark

Andy_International wrote: »

So, I have just received this from Monarch as 'advice' before filling out the formal form requesting compensation:

You may not be entitled to compensation despite suffering a delayed flight where the delay was caused by Extraordinary Circumstances. The CAA has issued guidance on the meaning of Extraordinary Circumstances as including but not limited to the following:
a) Aircraft technical faults discovered just before flight...

Aside from this being a complete lie, what the airlines, IMO, are trying to say is that if there's a sudden breakdown with 'something' on the plane, then that's it, they are off the hook, and they can take as long as they like to fix it.
Not so. The point of the ECJ ruling is that a breakdown isn't extraordinary, and that the airlines should fix things and be on their way a bit quicker.

111KAB

See my post 3707 regarding my delay.

Monarch have indicated they intend defending my Court claim and I can only think their defence will be extraordinary circumstances. I have written to the CAA asking for their opinion quoting the circumstances of my flight (technical) delay and their response is awaited. I have also sent the CAA a copy of page 4 of the Monarch claim form where they list their understanding of the extraordinary circumstances and quote the CAA. I have stated that IMO, they are 'using' the CAA name irresponsibly - again I await their response. From the information on the CAA website my delay was not due to a problem outside of Monarch's control and this is also borne out by the ECJ ruling information kindly provided by Centipede.

RWT

Still to hear from Monarch and i fear the worst as my flight was from the Gambia to the Uk !!!!!!!!!!!

richardw

111KAB wrote: »

See my post 3707 regarding my delay.

Monarch have indicated they intend defending my Court claim and I can only think their defence will be extraordinary circumstances. I have written to the CAA asking for their opinion quoting the circumstances of my flight (technical) delay and their response is awaited. I have also sent the CAA a copy of page 4 of the Monarch claim form where they list their understanding of the extraordinary circumstances and quote the CAA. I have stated that IMO, they are 'using' the CAA name irresponsibly - again I await their response. From the information on the CAA website my delay was not due to a problem outside of Monarch's control and this is also borne out by the ECJ ruling information kindly provided by Centipede.

Have you made it clear to Monarch that you are fully aware of the detail regarding Wallentin Hermann v Alitalia and also Sturgeon?