Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

richardw

Ich - don't overlook the concept of 'principal and agent'.

blondmark

Mark2spark wrote: »

It says on page 5 of the MCOL guidance that, after judgement, if you don't agree with the decision, then you have 21 days in which to appeal.
So it might be worth holding back on the warrant of execution until this 21 day period has (well) passed.

An appeal against a judgment and an Application to Set Aside are two different things. The airline would not be appealing here; they would be saying 'We didn't know we'd been sued but now we know we need an opportunity to defend it *and* our defence has a good chance of success.' This can be done as soon after the judgment as a defendant discovers it has been sued. However such an application ought not to be granted where a limited company has been served at its registered office, or at an office that is closely connected with the claim, as it is automatically deemed to have knowledge of the litigation.

richardw

So I'm at the airport now and our aircraft has gone tech, do I quietly let them know that they have an EU reg EC 261/2004 expert as a passenger?

richardw

Got a departure time now so should be on our way!

Only 80 mins late, so the 'reasonable measures' bit seems to be working.

Farz

I read this article and thought I would give it a shot ... after being delayed by a day coming back from Cancun to London in 2009 .. I just received £1000 compensation voucher from Thomas Cook!!!!

Amazingly happy at the outcome! Thanks MSE!

Happy Traveller

Ich_2

Ich - don't overlook the concept of 'principal and agent'.

Oh I haven't, I work with contractors a lot and am well aware of what can occur and who is responsible. But in many cases who is responsible (financially) can only put into place so many controls. In the end it is down to human factors if or if not an incident will occur.

This is where phrases like "reasonable" and "reasonably practicable" have to be used by regulators and the courts.

In real terms no matter how much folk apportion blame and point fingers, whether a vehicle hits and aircraft or not can depend on a piece of paper.
The principle will tell it's agents "don't allow your staff to drive vehicles into our aircraft" It's agents will agree and have in place all number of stops & checks.

Still doesn't prevent it though!

So again, what do folk on here think is reasonable to prevent it occurring

atypicalblonde

Hi everyone

Well, I have finally had a response back from united airlines, residing our delayed flight from London to San Francisco. They have sent me and my husband a $200 travel certificate each as a gesture of goodwill, but state the EU261compensation is not applicable in this case.

I don't think they are right as the flight was from an EU airport, am I correct in thinking this?

Many thanks x

Moatz

I've been reading all the EU rulings around EC Regulation 261/2004 and wondered:

If an airline or its regulatory body decides a flight has been delayed or cancelled due to a technical issue which they consider to be an extraordinary circumstance, then this implies that the issue didn't occur as part of the day-to-day business of the airline and must be outside its control (Wallentin-Hermann judgement, ruling 1).

Therefore, before attempting a repair, the airline must have a duty to report the technical issue to the airplane manufacturer and allow the manufacturer to perform root-cause analysis or, in the worst case, the grounding of all flights for that type of plane.

Furthermore, after urgently reviewing the issue, the manufacturer must report back to all airlines using that type of aircraft and update the maintenance schedules so this "extraordinary issue" doesn't affect future flights, especially if the issue could occur when planes are already in the air.

Therefore, the airline must be able to prove that they sent details of the extraordinary technical issue to the airplane manufacturer. If they didn't, why not? Or was it because the issue wasn't that extraordinary and more day-to-day? Or just inconvenient when it occurred?

atypicalblonde

Centipede100 wrote: »

You are correct in thinking this.

Thank you centipede. I was thinking that I will write back stating that they are incorrect in their interpretation of EU261, giving them 14 days to pay the requested compensation, otherwise I will refer to te CAA.

Does that sound reasonable to you?

sindyjames

Is there anyone on the site who knows what a yaw damper fault is? This is the reason we were given for our delay.
Or was anyone on the flight TCX2663 from Dalaman to Manchester on 26 June 2012?
Thanks.