Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

Mark2spark

jpsartre wrote: »

But you said the least he was entitled to was a refund which isn't the case. In any case, the poster said he accepted a seat on SAA. That seems to indicate it was offered, presumbly by AF. If he paid out of his own pocket that changes the situation obviously.

Well it's a delay in excess of 5 hours, which entitles the passenger to a refund, is what i'm saying.
Seeing as he wasn't also returned to his original destination...?
But there's too many unknowns to be accurate.
You appear to be saying that he isn't entitled to anything *at the least*?
Please provide your own take on it?

Mark2spark

richardw wrote: »

Touch down and arrival at the gate/parking spot are the significant points. If touch down is not delayed by 3 hours or more, you may find airlines forcefully arguing against you.

You can bet your life they will

Another thing.
If a 2 hour delay, on a EU flight of less than 1500 km, triggers the entitlement to a meal and refreshments, at what point does a secondary entitlement to be fed and watered arise?
Another 2 hour delay? (4 hours in total)
Or is that it, even if it's a 12 hour delay (10 more hours)?

Mark2spark

Daza wrote: »

It appears that ALL airlines are in breach of "Regulation 216/2004 - Article 14" - as no airline has a notice at check-in explaining your rights to compensation in case of any delay, nor are you given a written notice of these rights to compensation

I have also pulled Monarch on this despicable disregard for the rules.
When we checked in at Palma Mallorca, the previous flight hadn't even arrived at Gatwick, therefore there was simply no way that there would be a less than 2 hour delay. Therefore at the very least, meal vouchers and a print out of passenger rights should have been provided at check in.
The screen showed a 45 minute delay, however, upon clearing airport security, the screen changed (as if by magic :mad: ) to a 4 hour delay.
We then had to walk up and down the airport trying to find someone from Monarch with any info.
It didn't help that there was a Spanish catering/support staff strike and only Burger King and a sandwich bar where open in the terminal.
From check in to take off was 9 hours, with only one €6 meal voucher. The cheapest meal at burger king, excepting kids meals, was €8.

jpsartre

Mark2spark wrote: »

You appear to be saying that he isn't entitled to anything *at the least*?
Please provide your own take on it?

Well yes, nothing would be *the least* he is entitled to. It may be more depending on the details of what happened. No need to get in a big debate over it though, I don't think we disagree. I read your claim as being that no matter what the details of what happened were, he would still be entitled to a refund.

RWT

Hi all today i have received this reply from Wizz air so i have asked for evidence it could be a common response travelling to East European distinations but this was in Summer !
With regards to your claim we would like to draw your attention that the reason for the flight delay was rotation delay picked up during the aircraft’s previous stops resulting from London Luton airport incompatible with the operation (bad weather conditions).

Please consider that Wizz Air as operating air carrier shall not be obliged to pay compensation, if cancellation or long delay is caused by extraordinary circumstances according to Art. 5. par. (3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the council establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights.

Originally Art.5. par. (3) of the Regulation applies to flight cancellations but the European Court of Justice in its judgments concerning compensations for long delays of flights extended the application of Art.5. par. (3), stating that the airline shall not pay compensation for long delays, if the long delay was caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.

We would like to inform you that according to the operative EC regulation and our General Conditions of Carriage, in case of a flight delay we are willing to reimburse your expenses occured directly due to the delay such as meals, refreshments and two brief telephone calls can be reimbursed in reasonable relation to the waiting time upon reception of supplementing invoices.

As for the additional expenses, we kindly ask you to forward all related invoices, as an attachment to your reply, so that we can determine a possible compensation and please send us the further information:

- IBAN

LBD

Hi Mark,

Firstly sorry never thought topost the flight details when I first started posting...

Flight Number ZB 3566 London Luton 03/04/2012 to Rome FCO...

Oh well I can expect the same legal firm to be dealing with my court paperwork then...

Perhaps a influx of emails to watchdog might give Monarch a little uncomfortable air time.... you never know it might even make then do something?...

I notice that company are linked to TUI... erm are they nto Thomas Cook? who are in a little soapy bubble financially...?

and how do you guys get the funny faces on your posts I cant see where they are..

jpsartre

Centipede100 wrote: »

The arrival time at LHR is immaterial. The OP's original flight was to BHX and it is the delay in arrival at BHX which counts.

I'd say that very much depends on the circumstances under which the new flight was offered. If the passenger was simply transferred to a flight to LHR I agree with you. But if the new flight was offered to the passenger as an alternative to original flight, I'd say the passenger effectively agreed to change his destination airport when he chose that option.

jpsartre

Yes, hopefully he will.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe there are no circumstances under which a passenger can agree to change his destination airport? Even if, say, the passenger himself requests rerouting to an alternative airport and this request is granted as a goodwill gesture?

I had a situation like this recently. Was scheduled to fly to BLL (through LCY) but my incoming flight was diverted and I missed my connection. Rather than wait for the next flight (which was the following day) I asked BA if they would be willing to reroute me to CPH instead which they did. As far as I was concerned, CPH was then my destination airport, not BLL (though I did ask BA to pay for my train ticket to the BLL area from CPH as a goodwill gesture which they did).

Cook_County

I got this reply from CityJet today about a long delay in 2008:

Thank you for takingthe time to contact us here at CityJet Customer Care, and thank you for yourpatience while we reviewed all files on the flight in question. I regret thatwe are unable to meet your request for compensation for this occasion.

The delay to yourflight was caused by a technical fault on this aircraft due to operate yourflight. The aircraft experienced an oil leak indication prior to departurewhich meant an engineer had to service the aircraft. Unfortunately our normalchecks did not find this fault and therefore was unexpected. CityJet does notconsider itself liable to pay out compensation on this occasion. I remainavailable should you have any further queries.

Is there any chance of arguing that these were not extraordinary circumstances and could have been avoided by the air carrier? I would guess not?

jpsartre

Cook_County wrote: »

The delay to yourflight was caused by a technical fault on this aircraft due to operate yourflight. The aircraft experienced an oil leak indication prior to departurewhich meant an engineer had to service the aircraft. Unfortunately our normalchecks did not find this fault and therefore was unexpected.

In light of the ECJ's clarification of extraordinary circumstances it seems unlikely that this would count as such. Of course, convincing CityJet of this is another matter.