Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

richardw

tomawest, see post 2143 in this thread for clarification on technical faults, it is very important not to confuse others on this issue, so do it quickly and then perhaps edit your post.

topyam

I had a cancelled flight with SouthWest airlines in 2009.

The airline was sold to Eastern Airways in September 2010.

I sent Eastern Airlines the pretty standard cancellation template. They have responded this morning by saying that:

Unfortunately, we had no involvement with Air Southwest at that period, therefore we do not hold any records or information regarding this flight.

We are therefore unable to assist you further with your claim and please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused.

Is this correct - do they not hold responsibility for this now?
Can anyone advise me?

richardw

For clarification on technical issues

Centipede100 wrote: »

Sturgeon judgment:

Operative part of the judgment

1. Articles 2(l), 5 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that a flight which is delayed, irrespective of the duration of the delay, even if it is long, cannot be regarded as cancelled where the flight is operated in accordance with the air carrier’s original planning.

2. Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are delayed may be treated, for the purposes of the application of the right to compensation, as passengers whose flights are cancelled and they may thus rely on the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of the regulation where they suffer, on account of a flight delay, a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours, that is, where they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier. Such a delay does not, however, entitle passengers to compensation if the air carrier can prove that the long delay was caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken, namely circumstances beyond the actual control of the air carrier.

3. Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation or delay 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 default position is that technical issues should not be ruled as an "extraordinary circumstance" unless the problem is not inherent in normal aircraft operations and maintenance. This should be a pretty high hurdle for airlines to satisfy and they ought not to be able to satisfy that position unless the problem was so rare as to almost never happen. Sadly for passengers, the small claims court can be a bit of a chancy saloon and some odd decisions have been handed down despite the fact that the passengers case was rock solid in terms of the wording of the Regulation and of the precedent case law.

Blindman's reasoning is good but what some people also forget is that airlines must also satisfy the court on the "which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken" aspect. This is sometimes lost in the fog of a claim but to my mind is just as useful to the claimant as the first part of the paragraph.

tomawest

richardw: thanks for that however this is exactly what I am on about. In tiggifarfars case, the plane suffered damage to a panel either during its previous flight or whilst at the airport. We dont know and arent likely to know how this was damaged however I would expect the airline to claim that it was damaged outside the normal aircraft operations or maintenance. I would expect something along the lines of a bird strike to come within this remit as it is outside the normal operations of an aircraft.

What I meant earlier was, if this flight was damaged outside the normal operartions, then the wooly area is whether it is the airlines fault regarding the subsequent delays that result from this plane not operating.

richardw

Please delete...

richardw

please delete.....

wondrac

We were scheduled to leave Gatwick flying to Jamaica in June departing at 10am. We checked in at the Desk at 7am and there was no mention of any flight delays. It was only when we went through Security that we saw the Departure board had the flight departing at 12 noon. There was no announcement from the airline (Thomsons) or any information as to the reasons. Eventually at 2pm we saw the gate was open and proceeded to the departure gate. Once in the departure gate there was an announcement that they were awaiting spare parts and the flight would leave as soon as possible. The vending machines in the departure gate would accept your money but would not dispense any goods. After another lengthy delay the flight was called. As we passed security they handed us £3 vouchers for food to be used on the plane. The flight eventually departed at 4pm. We had booked Premium seats so we did not need the vouchers. Complaints to Thomsons have been met with silence so I think I will try the letter to the CAA.

richardw

tomawest wrote: »

...the plane suffered damage to a panel either during its previous flight or whilst at the airport. We dont know and arent likely to know how this was damaged however I would expect the airline to claim that it was damaged outside the normal aircraft operations or maintenance. ....

Perhaps read up a bit on "Principal and Agent" to clarify where responsibilities are in similar situations.

J_B

Daza wrote: »

- If you can't remember the flight number, use http://www.flightstats.com
just enter the date and airport and it will show you the flight code & hopefully the length of delay

For one of our delayed TC flights in July 2011 it gives no delay details - just says 'unavailable'

Any other suggestions?

joerugby

Centipede100 wrote: »

If an airline either doesn't respond within the timescale you have set and your first letter has stated that failure to respond with an offer to compensate in full or a valid reason for rejecting your claim will lead to legal proceedings then no further template letter should be sent. The correct response is to issue legal proceedings.

If you do not want/cannot contemplate starting a legal claim, don't bother proceeding further, airlines can and will defend such claims. IT IS NOT A LETTER WRITING EXERCISE!

I have today received a letter from those nice people at BA advising that a cheque for the equivalent of EUR1,200 is in the post. :j

I can speak only for myself but my experience is that it was simply a letter writing exercise (or rather an exercise in filling in their webform and following up a couple of times by email). I had no intention of taking them to court and my belief that once they got through their mountain of claims and considered mine they would pay up turned out to be justified.

I have been pretty satisfied with BA as an airline for many years and this experience has certainly reinforced that feeling.

Just waiting for the cheque now - hope it arrives in time to book something in their current sale!