Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

Reue

Just had my reply from Thompson (Flight was delayed 16 hours due to "Pilot Sickness"):


After investigating your claim for compensation... Your flight was delayed by 15hours 55minutes as a result of pilot suffering from an injury prior to departure which meant that we had to arrange alternative staff cover to ensure a safe and compliant flight.

As im sure you can appreciate, the reason for your delay was as a result of an event beyond our control. As the delay to your flight was caused by extraordinary circumstances, the regulation does no require us to make payment.

So is it an extraordinary circumstance that a member of crew has an accident the day before the flight requiring us to be delayed almost 16 hours?? I'd assume staff accidents and sicknesses happen all the time in every company.

GLENO

Hi all, Wrote to Singapore Airlines regarding a delay we had back on 30th Nov 2006 flying from Man, flight was delayed over 6 hours due to a technical issue.
I sent first letter back on Nov 1st ,had a reply saying they were looking into the claim, had my second letter back from them today saying the following
"According to article 35 of the Montreal Convention the right to damages shall be extinguished if an action is brought within a period of two years reckoned from the date of arrival at destination or from the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived or from the date on which the carriage stopped"

The say in view of this and taking into account my claim was submitted after two years they regret and respectfully decline my claim.

Can somebody tell me if this is correct or are they just trying to fob me off?...........

Many thanks for any replies.

richardw

Please delete.

Dopey1980

KLM can be now be added to the list of airlines that have paid out. I have to say though, it wasn't easy. It took quite a bit of pressure and involvement from the press before they agreed to cough up.

Dopey1980

buscdr wrote: »

I got fobbed off by Air France saying they could not entertain my claim as it was outwith a 2 year period so I asked them to reconsider given the recent judgement. Their response is as follows:

---

Thank you for your recent communication dated 05th December 2012, with which you were expressing your disappointment in regards to our previous response. Please allow me to clarify our position.
I confirm that we maintain our position of holding a 2 year deadline. As the disruption of your [flight details] occurred back in September 2010, and the original complaint came to us on 30th November 2012, this is beyond the deadline.
This deadline of 2 years is the deadline planned by the Montreal Convention (1999) which stipulates, in its article 35: " the action in responsibility must be instituted, at the risk of forfeiture, for the deadline of 2 years as from the arrival to destination, or from the day when the aircraft should have arrived, or of the stop of the transport "
The decision of the ECJ in the affair Joan Cuadrench should, change nothing to it for all the States having ratified the Montreal Convention, or even having simply ratified the Warsaw Convention in 1929 (which planned already exactly the same arrangement).
Indeed, all the Nations agree to respect a general and fundamental principle of the right by recognizing by the legal rules a certain hierarchy.
This hierarchy is the following one:
1 - The Constitution (or the text which considers it place),
2 - The international Treaties (or international Conventions) duly ratified,
3 - The national law,
4 - The statutory acts (Regulations, Decrees, court cases).
It ensues from this universal rule that measures contained in an international Convention ratified by a State take it on the national laws.
Another fundamental principle wants that special rules take it on main rules.
So, for all the States having ratified the Montreal Convention (or Warsaw 1929), the limitation period of 2 years to commit an action in responsibility relative to a damage arisen during an air transport, takes it over any general limitation period concerning the introduction of an action in responsibility.
I do hope that the above explanation will help soften the negative impact of this situation and that you will afford us with yet another opportunity to serve you to your entire satisfaction.
Yours Sincerely,
G.Cannavo (Mr)
Customer car Europe

---

Anyone else had similar? Is it worth pushing?

My flight that I have been compensated for was a year before yours so keep pushing.

GLENO

Centipede100 wrote: »

You are out of time to make a claim - 6 years is the time limit.

Centipede100, thanks for the reply, I first submitted the claim though on Nov 1st 2012 which is within the six years. 5 years 11 months.

richardw

Have you started a small claim Gleno?

Kld

richardw wrote: »

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 ?

The snow was forecast. The announcement in the departure gate said the aircraft did not have enough fuel to join the queue of planes waiting to land and would be diverting to Dresden. They then cancelled our flight. The reason for the lack of fuel is probably that it is more expensive to buy fuel in the UK so they only take onboard the minimum required. However, they were well aware of the problem and I believe they should have ensured they carried enough for the possible delays in landing due to the weather.

grey.skipper

Would someone please help me out with Ryanair's UK address. I'm just about to send the first letter and can't find any address apart from their Irish address. Many thanks.

grey.skipper

So if it goes to small claim court I won't be able to do it through a UK court? Thanks.