Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

richardw

111KAB wrote: »

Yes Airbus with the common hydraulic fault.

Palma is one of Europe's busiest airports with many Airbus narrow body aircraft visiting everyday, just seems odd that Hamburg was the nearest place with spares available.

Daza

JPears wrote: »

Quick query:
Is it the general consensus (or established fact/point of law/ EU regulation statement) that a delay to one flight caused by delay to the previous flight of the same aircraft is not considered extraordinary circumstances?

If you mean that your delay was due to a "knock-on effect" from a previous route from the same aircraft - that is also what 2 of my claims from Thomson & Thomas Cook are saying and class them as "extraordinary circumstances"

There doesn't appear to be anything in the Regulation to say that the delay has to be on your flight, nor that it can be caused by a "knock-on effect" from a previous flight.
However I have forwarded all the paperwork onto the CAA & Spanish CAA for them to investigate further -- it may take a few court hearings early next year to decide if "knock-on effects" can be claimed upon, after all they are quite a common thing.

storriers

I too received the monarch email today, telling me i am out of the 6 years to claim, i think it is incredible that we have a EU directive but can not claim against it IE flights were delayed within the given time but our courts cant do anything about it as myself and probably hundreds more have missed out some by days/weeks/months, i believe the EU should force the airlines to pay out.

Come on Martin help us out here WE NEED YOUR HELP ON THIS!!!!! SURELY A PUSH FROM SOMEONE HIGH PROFILE MAY GET THEM TO CHANGE THEIR MINDS,

Mark2spark

111KAB wrote: »

Tried to reproduce (my) Monarch defence for information - unfortunately beyond my abilities so here is a link.


http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l27/lotuskimbo/Monarchdefence_zps8a18297a-1_zps2b76a406.jpg

In order to counteract their defence, further dissection of the ruling in Wallentin-Hermann has to occur.
The ruling is at the end:
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d2dc30db09a14aa5562d4f97850fe3a6f5ee048e.e34KaxiLc3qMb40Rch0SaxuKbxb0?text=&docid=73223&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1289826
The first part is the claim (where they have changed the wording to wording that appears more positive to the defence stance) of:
"...a technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation of a flight is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision, unless that problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control".
The ECJ wording in point 26 references that the liklihood of this coming into play, is more to do with circumstances such as a manufacturer recalling aircraft because of a flawed part.
Still, sections 15 -43 should enlighten you as to ways to discredit the defence claim.
The further claim that they used all of their resources etc, you need to ask the court why a common fault such as the one claimed, why they do not hold a stock of these replacement pipes at major airport hubs, which, collectively with agreement with other airlines, could result in a freely available replacement part for all airlines, at a relatively 'to hand' speed. Such a policy would hardly fail the test at point 40, "...conditions which are technically and economically viable for the air carrier concerned".

IMO there is enough in the Wallentin-Hermann judgement to counteract their defence, but you'll have to be on your toes and *learn* the whole decision so that you are au fait with it when cross challenged by a barrister.
I'm assuming you are LIP? (Litigant In Person)

Mark2spark

storriers wrote: »

I too received the monarch email today, telling me i am out of the 6 years to claim, i think it is incredible that we have a EU directive but can not claim against it IE flights were delayed within the given time but our courts cant do anything about it as myself and probably hundreds more have missed out some by days/weeks/months, i believe the EU should force the airlines to pay out.

Cases that were submitted in UK courts before the decision was deferred to the ECJ for judgement, were stayed, therefore your claim, should you of course have filed it, can now resume.
The EU directive first came to light in 2004 (there's a clue in the Regulation Number, 261/2004 ) so there's no reason really to have not initiated a claim with the airline concerned, and filed at court once impasse had been reached, all within the 6 year threshold on limitations.

Mark2spark

Oxoboxo wrote: »

I have tried to claim compensation from Easyjet for a 7 hour delay. After several replies from an assistant, I finally received an email from their Escalation Team saying that the aircraft had had an engine surge, which required a boroscope inspection which could not have been foreseen and was therefore an extraordinary circumstance. Can anyone tell me if this reason counts as extraordinary? Thanks

IMO only the CAA can give you a professional alternative opinion on this.

Mark2spark

RWT wrote: »

I am one of the Many Monarch claimants however i am wondering if it is worth pursuing as claim relates to a flight in April 2005 so i cannot use the threat of court action but my case is strong realised after take off not enought fuel then electrical problems resulted 25 hour delay and overnight stop via tenerife .Poor Gambians were locked in a room as no visa,s for spain !
I have looked back a few pages but cannot find any help !

Forget it

Mark2spark

wendyjaycee wrote: »

We were delayed by just over 5hrs in August, i complained to Thomas Cook when we got back into the uk regarding the delay & lack of customer care & service & was basically fobbed off with an email telling me not to expect so much from a flight & comparing themselves to budget airlines (which equates to budget service without the budget prices!!), I then received the email from MSE & contacted them again re compensation. After a few emails acknowledging receipt of my emails i have just received a respose citing "EXTRAORDINARY TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES" as the cause of delay which apparently does not warrant any compensation. I have now written my letter to the CAA & await their reply, fingers crossed!!

Make sure you keep the email. IMO print a copy now in case your PC goes duff and you lose it.
Written evidence that they scoff at the minimum requirements that they are due to provide, by Law, is very useful.

Mark2spark

Dopey1980 wrote: »

Surely they would have it in their system? Also if both tickets were booked together and had the same ref number but different e ticket numbers then putting in my travel partners e ticket number should bring up my details?

The Original booking confirmation will confirm you as a passenger.

But note the defence filed by Monarch in 111KAB's case. They ask for "...strict proof that they were on the said flight"

Which, I agree, the airline actually holds the proof themselves, due to checking in lol

Mark2spark

spaceaarvark wrote: »

You had a reply from Thomson??

I heard nothing in response to my first letter, and the 14 days deadline I put on the subsequent NBA was up on Monday. No acknowledgement, no "it was extraordinary circumstances", no "give us time to investigate"...

So what should I do next: send another reminder, just wait, or start down the court route?

I am going to wait until the New Year in any event - I have better things to do!

IMO always send by recorded delivery. I know others say that proof of posting is enough, but that's my tuppence worth.
Resend IMO