Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

l.walton

Centipede100 wrote: »

Singapore are incorrect as the ECJ ruled on November 22nd that the time limit is that provided for in the country where the claim is made. In the UK the limit is 6 years from the date of delay.

I've just told them exactly that and got this response (at least it was quick!):


Thank you for your email and your comments have been acknowledged.

Pursuant to the statue of limitations in the UK and in accordance with Article 35 of the Montreal Convention, Singapore Airlines will only assess claims that were pending before the CJEU decision, or where a claim was staked within a period of two years from the date of arrival at the destination, or from the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the carriage stopped.

Thereafter, I regret we are not accepting any claims that do not correspond to the forgoing criteria. Subsequently, we must respectfully decline your claim pursuant to EC Regulation 261/2004 on this occasion.



Any suggestions? I don't really know what else I can say!

thalia22

l.walton wrote: »

I've just told them exactly that and got this response (at least it was quick!):


Thank you for your email and your comments have been acknowledged.

Pursuant to the statue of limitations in the UK and in accordance with Article 35 of the Montreal Convention, Singapore Airlines will only assess claims that were pending before the CJEU decision, or where a claim was staked within a period of two years from the date of arrival at the destination, or from the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the carriage stopped.

Thereafter, I regret we are not accepting any claims that do not correspond to the forgoing criteria. Subsequently, we must respectfully decline your claim pursuant to EC Regulation 261/2004 on this occasion.



Any suggestions? I don't really know what else I can say!

Hi their, Singpore airlines are not correct, yes under the Montreal Convention the time limit is that of the country concerned, in most cases thats the 2 year limit. However in the UK the time limit is 6 years, not 2 years. Airlines are attempting to block claims under EU261/2004, that is the main EU regulation, whereas airlines are obliged to pay compensation for Flight delays of 3 hours or more, providing they cannot claim extraodinary circumstances, ie. beyond the control of the airline.

Now in case C-629/10 Tui, BA, Easyjet, & IATA,-V-the CAA, they tried to limit the claims to the period after the ECJ ruling, which the ECJ Grand Chamber upheld EU261/2004 fully based on the orginal rulings, on the 23/10/2012, bearing in mind cases in the UK, were blocked from taking Court action, since August 2011, until ratification was obtained from the ECJ. Now in the Grand Chamber on 23/10/2012, the ECJ stated that temporal affects could not be applied. see below:-

Question 4 in Case C‑629/10 concerning the temporal effects of the present judgment

86 By question 4 in Case C-629/10, the referring court wishes to ascertain the temporal effects of the present judgment with regard to the right to compensation of passengers whose flights are delayed for three hours or more in relation to the arrival time originally scheduled.

87 TUI Travel and Others submit that if question 1 is answered in the affirmative and question 3 in the negative, the Court should limit the temporal effect of its ruling such that Articles 5 to 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 cannot be relied upon as the basis for claims by passengers for compensation in respect of flights which have been the subject of delay prior to the date of the present judgment, except as regards passengers who had already brought court proceedings for such compensation as of the date of the judgment. They submit that despite the judgment in Sturgeon and Others, airlines and other relevant actors may, to date, reasonably conclude that Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 does not apply to passengers whose flights are delayed, because that judgment is contrary to both the plain wording of that regulation and the judgment in IATA and ELFAA.

88 In that connection, regard must be had to the settled case-law to the effect that the interpretation which, in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on it by Article 267 TFEU, the Court gives to a rule of EU law clarifies and defines the meaning and scope of that rule as it must be or ought to have been understood and applied from the time of its entry into force. It follows that the rule as thus interpreted may, and must, be applied by the courts even to legal relationships which arose and were established before the judgment ruling on the request for interpretation, provided that in other respects the conditions for bringing a dispute relating to the application of that rule before the competent courts are satisfied (see, inter alia, Case C-347/00 Barreira P!rez [2002] ECR I-8191, paragraph 44 and Joined Cases C-453/02 and C‑462/02 Linneweber and Akritidis [2005] ECR I-1131, paragraph 41).

89 It is only exceptionally that the Court may, in application of the general principle of legal certainty inherent in the EU legal order, be moved to restrict for any person concerned the right to rely upon a provision which it has interpreted with a view to calling in question legal relationships established in good faith (see, inter alia, Case C‑104/98 Buchner and Others [2000] ECR I-3625, paragraph 39 and Linneweber and Akritidis, paragraph 42).

bazaar_2

OK , got my denial letter, they claim a delay of 4 hours 15 minutes was caused by a bird strike on a previous flight. Then goes on " As Im sure you can appreciate, as the delay to your flight was caused by extraordinary circumstances , the Regulation does not require us to make a payment."
So, I'm thinking out loud here, if the bird strike was to a previous flight why did our plane arrive late? So this for Centipede. Is it worth a final letter to TUI, to give full details of the flight maintenance record, to see if they are pulling a fast one, or just visit the CAA site again OR put in an official claim

bazaar_2

OK hows this for starters??
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; } I refer to your letter dated 6 th december 2012, where you state a 'Bird Strike' caused delay to a previous flight'.
As you can appreciate, I am a little bemused by your response as previously TUI were stating that the delay was caused by a 'Technical Difficulty'.
I am therefore requesting that you provide me with details of how an unrelated flight would cause any delay to my flight to Manchester, which then went on to Cancun. I would expect a bird strike to be quite a common occurance and one that would not need more than 1 to 2 hours to inspect for damage. Certainly, it would have been something that could have been relaid to passengers on the day and subsequently in our correspondence over the past 6 months. I would also appreciate it if you could provide me with the full data logs that show any damage caused to my flight 568, or even the previous flight if it was the same aircraft. Also, any maintenance logs for the flight in question on the date of 23 June 2012. If any such maintenance was carried out, a full list of parts required to make the repairs. I am sure you at TUI would like the opportunity to dispel any queries that may arise out of this confusion that has been caused by yourselves.
Although TUI have failed to respond in a timely manner previously, I would request that you provide me with the FULL details of the delay to our flight within the next 10 working days.

delvey

bazaar wrote: »

OK hows this for starters??
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; } I refer to your letter dated 6 th december 2012, where you state a 'Bird Strike' caused delay to a previous flight'.
As you can appreciate, I am a little bemused by your response as previously TUI were stating that the delay was caused by a 'Technical Difficulty'.
I am therefore requesting that you provide me with details of how an unrelated flight would cause any delay to my flight to Manchester, which then went on to Cancun. I would expect a bird strike to be quite a common occurance and one that would not need more than 1 to 2 hours to inspect for damage. Certainly, it would have been something that could have been relaid to passengers on the day and subsequently in our correspondence over the past 6 months. I would also appreciate it if you could provide me with the full data logs that show any damage caused to my flight 568, or even the previous flight if it was the same aircraft. Also, any maintenance logs for the flight in question on the date of 23 June 2012. If any such maintenance was carried out, a full list of parts required to make the repairs. I am sure you at TUI would like the opportunity to dispel any queries that may arise out of this confusion that has been caused by yourselves.
Although TUI have failed to respond in a timely manner previously, I would request that you provide me with the FULL details of the delay to our flight within the next 10 working days.

You could write the above, however it is up to them to proof that your flight was delayed due to 'extraordinary circumstances' when in court. Obviously having this information could be valuable, and really you should of asked for this information when you first wrote to them. BUT I do not think you will get anywhere

If I was you, I would ask for this information, but start your claim via MCOL or your local county court, as I doubt you will get a date until well in the new year.

Can I ask when you sent your original letter? I am still waiting a reply from TUI myself

Kld

My partner and I recently travelled with Lufthansa.

We were checked in to fly from Berlin to Heathrow and while waiting at the departure gate, we were advised that there was a delay in our flight as they were awaiting the inbound flight arriving. However, the inbound flight had to be diverted to another airport as it did not have enough fuel onboard to wait in the queue for the one operating runway and our flight was cancelled. After spending two hours standing in a queue we were rebooked for the following day and put up in a local hotel. I have sent a request for compensation. But I have noticed on their website that they are claiming force majeure due to bad weather.

There was heavy snow at the airport and they were working hard to keep one runway open. I just want to know if they can claim force majorce if other airlines where able to get their planes away, including a BA flight to London, that departed 10 minutes prior to our departure time and our cancellation was due to the airline not carrying enough fuel for what was a foreseen problem as their morning flight was also cancelled.

If they claim force majeure who can we appeal to?

richardw

Why didn't Lufthansa have enough fuel on the aircraft?

Was the snow not forecast?

What reasonable measures did LH take to avoid the cancellation ?

Mark2spark

bazaar wrote: »

OK hows this for starters??
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; } I refer to your letter dated 6 th december 2012, where you state a 'Bird Strike' caused delay to a previous flight'.
As you can appreciate, I am a little bemused by your response as previously TUI were stating that the delay was caused by a 'Technical Difficulty'...

IMO Bazaar you're wasting your time if you write in letters things that are remotely emotional. I appreciate that it's how humans talk to each other, but you've now entered the realm where only the facts matter.
You need to stick to the facts.
You state that they previously claimed a technical difficulty.
You state that they are now claiming an extraordinary circumstance, namely a bird strike.
You state that bird strikes are a fairly common occurrence and are within the remit of the day to day running of an airline, and therefore not an extraordinary circumstance given as the meaning of the wording in the ECJ judgement (appeal finding).
You therefore urge them to reconsider your very just claim, and that if no defence of a more valid nature is put forward within 14/21 days (you set the length), you put them on notice that you reserve the right to issue county court proceedings without further notice.

And do it.

Mark

Mark2spark

Kld wrote: »

My partner and I recently travelled with Lufthansa.

We were checked in to fly from Berlin to Heathrow and while waiting at the departure gate, we were advised that there was a delay in our flight as they were awaiting the inbound flight arriving. However, the inbound flight had to be diverted to another airport as it did not have enough fuel onboard to wait in the queue for the one operating runway and our flight was cancelled. After spending two hours standing in a queue we were rebooked for the following day and put up in a local hotel. I have sent a request for compensation. But I have noticed on their website that they are claiming force majeure due to bad weather.

There was heavy snow at the airport and they were working hard to keep one runway open. I just want to know if they can claim force majorce if other airlines where able to get their planes away, including a BA flight to London, that departed 10 minutes prior to our departure time and our cancellation was due to the airline not carrying enough fuel for what was a foreseen problem as their morning flight was also cancelled.

If they claim force majeure who can we appeal to?

The German version of the CAA I presume. Maybe the CAA can provide you the link/website etc of the next step for you.

Daza

Mark2spark wrote: »

The German version of the CAA I presume. Maybe the CAA can provide you the link/website etc of the next step for you.

The German version of CAA is Luftfahrt-Bundesmat (LBA)
Email: fluggastrechte@lba.de