Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

achrnysh

In regards to our delay with Aerosvit, I have contacted them numerous times, both in their online chat windows and voice calls, they have been nothing but awful in response. With any mention of compensation, they customer service staff have played dumb and completely ignored me for up to 40 minutes after which I gave up (on several occasions. And asking to speak to the manager - response being : the manager is off hours. surely if there is a team of customer service people being on call there must be someone i.e manager to supervise them . ridiculous. oh and once they told me that the whole of their customer service team was given a day off - on a monday! no even a holiday in Ukraine (at the time). I call !!!!!!!!. Eventually got fed up and contacted CAA who were more than happy to take on my case, stating that I had a very good claim and that they would get my compensation for me (in time for my birthday with luck) so hopefully all will go well and that the airline pays up. good luck to everyone else with their claims too! make sure you keep all correspondence between yourself and the airline, it is very helpful in your claim

richardw

What powers do the CAA have to get compensation for you?

jxe002

Hi,
I was delayed in Nov 2011 on a Cathay Pacific CX256 flight from Heathrow to Hong Kong (and eventually onto Hanoi) overnight, arriving in Hong Kong about 15 hours late.

We were kept in the airport for 3 hours after scheduled take off and then put up overnight in a hotel before returning to take off the following day. I have raised this with Cathay and they have stated the delay was due to an electrical defect identified during preflight checks. Their response is summarised below:

"CX256 was delayed overnight due to an electrical power defect in the aircraft. Immediately after the issue was identified, engineers undertook extensive troubleshooting in accordance with the aircraft maintanence manual (AMM).

However, unbeknown to our engineers at the time, the entry point in the AMM was incorrect. As a result of this, the fault was not identified correctly and resulted in an extensive delay in rectifying the defect. Cathay rasied this with Airbus, and Airbus have confirmed there was a defect in the AMM."

Because of the above, Cathay are stating that the delay was caused by the AMM problems and therefor stemmed from events which were not inherrant in normal operation.

Are they correct? Anyone got any similar issues? If so shouldnn't Airbus be liable through Cathay?

Have sent this to the CAA 7 weeks ago but not heard anything back yet.. Any help would be much appreciated.

stevemej123

richardw wrote: »

What powers do the CAA have to get compensation for you?

I just got off the phone to the CAA. They don't have any powers to force the airline to payout. They are able to look at the full details of the case (including flight logs) and are able to make a judgement whether you have a case. If the airline company won't pay out then they will provide evidence for you to take to court with you. I guess if they find in favour of the airline then if you go to court the airline will have the judgement in their favour of their defence.

Dave_TH

Dave_TH wrote: »

Can see your point but don't fully agree, my complaint went in on the 2nd January 2013 and I now have a reply on the 9th, I suspect a judge would want a bit more dialog than one letter each over one week.

After a couple of E mails (yes 2) I rejected their argument that I claimed after the 28 days, I said the usual stuff that their rules done supersede EU law, well to day I got a cheque NO ...voucher for £1090.00p, do I reject and insist on £££££'s sorry if its been covered but this is one long thread and It too ages to find my original post

Cheers Dave

Quick edit, rang Thomas Cook customer relations, they have agreed to cancel the voucher and send me a cheque instead, will take around a wek and they agreed straight away no arguments. Thankyou MSE for the original information.

Mark2spark

jxe002 wrote: »

Hi,
I was delayed in Nov 2011 on a Cathay Pacific CX256 flight from Heathrow to Hong Kong (and eventually onto Hanoi) overnight, arriving in Hong Kong about 15 hours late.

We were kept in the airport for 3 hours after scheduled take off and then put up overnight in a hotel before returning to take off the following day. I have raised this with Cathay and they have stated the delay was due to an electrical defect identified during preflight checks. Their response is summarised below:

"CX256 was delayed overnight due to an electrical power defect in the aircraft. Immediately after the issue was identified, engineers undertook extensive troubleshooting in accordance with the aircraft maintanence manual (AMM).

However, unbeknown to our engineers at the time, the entry point in the AMM was incorrect. As a result of this, the fault was not identified correctly and resulted in an extensive delay in rectifying the defect. Cathay rasied this with Airbus, and Airbus have confirmed there was a defect in the AMM."

Because of the above, Cathay are stating that the delay was caused by the AMM problems and therefor stemmed from events which were not inherrant in normal operation.

Are they correct? Anyone got any similar issues? If so shouldnn't Airbus be liable through Cathay?

Have sent this to the CAA 7 weeks ago but not heard anything back yet.. Any help would be much appreciated.

Sounds like it might be an EC, although the smell of BS is overpowering.
Write back and request documentary evidence from Cathay's correspondence with Airbus that confirms that it was a manufacturing fault, and also whether all Airbus's of that designation have been recalled because of it.
Also request documentary evidence of the attempts that Cathay made to lease an alternative plane, from ALL of the companies that they contacted.

Ich_2

Airbus that confirms that it was a manufacturing fault

As I read it it was an error in the Aircraft Maintenance Manual, that had not been spotted before by any airline or Airbus! This is on aircraft introduced in the early '90s.
So if it has nor been spotted it would be an EC as it has never happened previously worldwide in the aircraft type! As if it had the AMM would have been changed
How likely is that ....

Though finding a long range 200+seater to wet lease at short notice I would imagine to be difficult

Mark2spark

So it appears that if it's a legitimate EC at the start, then a 24 hour plus delay is acceptable?

Ich_2

That is up to the courts, I'm just questioning that it seems odd that this fault has never occurred before in the 20 years the aircraft has been flying!

End of the day if they can't get a replacement there is not a lot anyone can do about it! (but they do possibly have to prove that)

So perhaps acceptable, no! Inevitable, yes

mikat_2

I wrote to BA on 11/12/12 and then again on 13/01/13 without receiving any acknowledgement.
However on 23/02/13 I received full compensation of 800 euros (400 each person) for a 2011 flight from Athens to Heathrow which was delayed for just over 4 hours.