Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

Mark2spark

Vauban wrote: »

...my delay involved a return flight from Sharm to London. But the actual delay occurred entirely at the UK end (a technical problem - which I believe to be a cracked windscreen - meant the plane never flew out to Egypt to meet us). Does this mean that I can ask the CAA to investigate, and not pass on to the Egyptian aviation regulator, as the incident occurred entirely in the UK?

Yes. No need to involve Egypt at this point.
The CAA will tell you if it's out of their hands.

Mark2spark

kforshaw wrote: »

Happy New Year all.

Rightio, I wrote to TUI / Thomson / First Choice in October 2012 re: a delayed flight from 2007, and got a "please bare with us" response in mid November, and one of my party has now recieved a response from them.

They're asking for the boarding passes, which I no longer have.
I can answer everything else, with a little artistic licence on the Check In time as equally I can't remember what time it was, as there was a hefty queue to the desks.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8474/8354192099_315cbde603_b.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8503/8355225808_5bfafe5592_b.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8095/8355227222_009ea01ca5_c.jpg

Hopefully, this won't matter too much but they're also requesting a further 56 days to investigate.

I have my flight booking confirmation, which also confirms it was a ticketless flight, so I'm unable to produce that either.
However, the flight concerned is one I've been able to obtain the detailed information from Flightstats for thankfully.

Is this a stalling measure do you think?

The more I hear and read, i'm afraid the more bolshie I would get, as I don't suffer this sort of stuff too much.
As far as i'm concerned this is a civil matter governed by law, Thomson and the airlines in general DO NOT GET TO CHOOSE how the claims are to be handled, so questions like what time did you check in are n/a answers to me.
As you've already had correspondence with them, coupled with, I assume, all relevant details, booking refs, names, etc, then they have all the details that are required.
Yes, arguably there's a case for passport pic copy to prove your ID.
I'd send it back with a 14 day LBA stating that they've already had since November with the full facts.

I can see the courts in the UK getting rather clogged up over this piece of legislation... :cool:

Mark2spark

WoodyT wrote: »

Hi all :wave:

Just after a bit of advice pls... we went to Mexico in December and were delayed for just over 24hrs on the way out. We were 'put up' in the Britiannia Stockport but moved as it was disgusting. I am claiming for all my expenses regarding the accommodation etc.

With regards to the flight, I have seen the EU ruling that leads me to believe I am entitled to £480 for the delay plus maybe a refund on the flight, even though we still went. Is this correct? We flew premier class but there was nothing premier about it!

Has anyone ever received this payment regarding an overnight delay? Also if I claim on my insurance can I also claim against Thomson?

Thanks in advance for any help.

You don't really get to choose the level of accomodation if you find the hotel provided isn't up to scratch. The airline wants people all in one place for quick mustering.
So a claim for expenses that are higher than the level provided will probably fall on deaf ears.
You could potentially get compo, depending on the reason for the delay, but you can't have a refund as well, as you actually took the flight, albeit, delayed.
Any insurance cover is over and above your legal entitlement to compo.
Why €480 btw? It should be €600 pp?

Mark2spark

topyam wrote: »

Can anyone advise me on my queries re Ryanair a few posts back today?

Assuming your first contact with them laid out the case as per the template letter on here, or the CAA one, then you file court claim next.

Mark2spark

sooperb wrote: »

We were delayed 8 hours on this flight, wrote a letter claiming compensation and have just received an email saying:

"Our records show that the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight developed a number 2 C-duct engine fault and the fan cowl was delaminated. A replacement fan cowl was sourced from Memphis, Tennessee. Due to the size of the component it was only able to be transported on a cargo aircraft from Atlanta, Georgia before being flown to London Heathrow Airport. However unfortunately this led to a delay in the scheduled departure time of your flight.

As a consequence your flight was transferred to the first available aircraft within the Monarch fleet. It was also unfortunate that despite Monarch’s best efforts there was no availability to transfer your flight to an aircraft sub-chartered from a third party operator to reduce the length of the delay.

Having considered the factual background of this incident, I am satisfied that this was indeed an extraordinary circumstance that could not have reasonably been prevented by Monarch and as a consequence I am unable to agree to your claim for compensation."

Is there anywhere I can find out whether EU 261 allows this exception? I understood mechanical failure was not a valid exceptional circumstance. They knew well in advance that the outward flight from Gatwick would not leave at 08.30 that morning so there would be no 20.30 flight from Malaga. Despite this it was shown as having taken off on Monarch's website.

I'm not happy that they can just skittle the claim like this, what next do you advise?

You could now go to the CAA and ask them, or you could also file a court claim in the meantime as the CAA answer will be several weeks. Tech issues are not extraordinary circumstances.

topyam

Mark2spark wrote: »

Assuming your first contact with them laid out the case as per the template letter on here, or the CAA one, then you file court claim next.

Thinking of options...
1. Is it worth going back to Ryanair to state that 'operational reasons' isn't exceptional circumstances? Would this make a difference?

2. Is it worth contacting CAA to see if they can look into it and contact Ryanair?

3. Or are these two options pointless and I should just go to filing a court claim?

Out of interest, are companies that do this for you having any more success in getting payouts?

rusty_frog

Just preparing notes for my MCOL against Thomas Cook.

They claim that the delay was caused by a 'technical/mechanical' problem which they claim, because it could not be foreseen, was extraordinary! :rotfl:
No comments please!

The fault was that a lock on a cargo door was faulty and had to be replaced.
I know through reading through the forum that bird strikes are quite common, but just how common are cargo door faults?

111KAB

rusty_frog wrote: »

I know through reading through the forum that bird strikes are quite common, but just how common are cargo door faults?

Generally only extraordinary circumstances are reported - if at all so an 'ordinary' common problem such as a faulty lock is unlikely to get any coverage whatsoever. Any reports regarding an aircraft malfunction are really down to the airline to report/log however, as I understand it, there it is not compulsory for the airline to do so. So unless the problem has a 'knock on' effect say to other Airbus/Boeing planes the airlines have a vested interest not to raise the matter.

Think if you are going via MCOL there is not enough space to go into the actual technical problem. I would just stick to the relevant 'legal' position ie not extraordinary circumstances and refer to the relevant ECJ rulings.

You might get an apology if you have a red shirt ....
AIRLINE bosses today apologised to Liverpool FC after the first team was left stranded in Italy.
The Reds spent the night in a hotel after their plane was grounded due to a technical fault.
The team headed straight for Trieste Airport after their 1-0 victory over Udinese in the Europa League on Thursday night and were due to arrive at John Lennon airport at about 1am yesterday.
But as the chartered Monarch flight was taxiing along the runway ready for take-off, the plane’s captain announced he would have to turn back due to a warning light in the cockpit.
A spokeswoman for the airline said the flight was abandoned because a part for the faulty plane needed to be sent from the UK.
She added: “We operated a charter flight on behalf of tour operator Thomas Cook Sport for Liverpool FC.
“On push back the aircraft developed a technical fault. After a full investigation by a Monarch engineer on board, a spare part was required from the UK.
“Both Monarch Airlines and Thomas Cook Sport have been in discussion with Liverpool FC to find the best solution for the team and a rescue aircraft was positioned to Trieste.
“Monarch would like to apologise to Liverpool FC and thank them for their co-operation.”
The team finally touched down on home soil at about 3.30pm yesterday.

Mark2spark

topyam:

Thinking of options...
1. Is it worth going back to Ryanair to state that 'operational reasons' isn't exceptional circumstances? Would this make a difference?

Probably not.

2. Is it worth contacting CAA to see if they can look into it and contact Ryanair?

Possibly.

3. Or are these two options pointless and I should just go to filing a court claim?

Only you can call that really.

Out of interest, are companies that do this for you having any more success in getting payouts?

No reports of any success using this route AFAIA on this thread.

Mark2spark

rusty_frog wrote: »

Just preparing notes for my MCOL against Thomas Cook.

They claim that the delay was caused by a 'technical/mechanical' problem which they claim, because it could not be foreseen, was extraordinary! :rotfl:
No comments please!

The fault was that a lock on a cargo door was faulty and had to be replaced.
I know through reading through the forum that bird strikes are quite common, but just how common are cargo door faults?

It's an unknown Rusty, but not an EC anyway.