Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

MrHeart

Centipede100 wrote: »

I guess it depends on the exact nature of the terms of the Legal Expenses Insurer and whether it states that they may decline to take a case to court on the basis of what you have stated above.

Certainly worth checking before including the cover or selecting an insurer.

Further to my previous posts, and with no luck through solicitors provided by Legal Expenses Insurer, a final letter to Singapore Airlines has yielded results. The day before I was to issue court proceedings Singapore Airlines have made a full settlement of my claim.:j
The message I would send to all frustrated claimants is Don't Give Up.
Good luck to all.

little_princess

Vauban wrote: »

(poor weather at another airport doesn't count anyway, IMHO, especially as your were at a hub airport).

Hi Vauban, many thanks for your reply, could you expand further on why being at a hub airport is important? I was more annoyed that they had changed the problem for the delay from one that you could claim for (technical problems) to one that you couldnt claim for (weather problems) :mad:

callllly

Flight delayed to Cuba 22hr, Thomson put it down to fuel leak on plane's previous flight and said as that is classed as 'extraordinary circumstances they have rejected my claim.
I originally posted my query about a month ago and took advise from someone who was good enough to reply.
After taking the advise I read up on Thomson's claim for 'extraordinary circumstances'. I found this quite difficult to understand. Therefore I am considering a where there's a blame there's a claim company. Can anybody recommend a company to me please.

Thnx

Vauban

little_princess wrote: »

Hi Vauban, many thanks for your reply, could you expand further on why being at a hub airport is important? I was more annoyed that they had changed the problem for the delay from one that you could claim for (technical problems) to one that you couldnt claim for (weather problems) :mad:

Two points, princess:

a) weather is only an extraordinary circumstance if it affects your flight directly. Have a look at what Regular 261/04 says in para 14 of the preamble. It says that weather may be an EC only if there are "meteorological conditions incompatable with the operation of the flight concerned" - ie that the weather is affecting your own flight directly, not knock-ons from previous weather-related incidents. If a plane due to be used for your flight has been delayed by weather elsewhere in the world, that's an operational problem for the airline to resolve - not an extraordinary circumstances that relieves them of an obligation to pay compensation.

b) The regulation says that, once confronted with the prospect of a delay, the airline needs to take "all reasonable measures" to prevent one. This is why the hub airport point is important. In the Wallentin Hermann judgement, the Court defined what constituted "reasonable measures". It says, in paras 40-41 that:

"the onus is on the party seeking to rely on them [a defence of extraordinary circumstances] to establish, in addition, that they could not on any view have been avoided by measures appropriate to the situation, that is to say by measures which, at the time those extraordinary circumstances arise, meet, inter alia, conditions which are technically and economically viable for the air carrier concerned.

That party must establish that, even if it had deployed all its resources in terms of staff or equipment and the financial means at its disposal, it would clearly not have been able – unless it had made intolerable sacrifices in the light of the capacities of its undertaking at the relevant time – to prevent the extraordinary circumstances with which it was confronted from leading to the cancellation [or delay] of the flight."

If your plane is stuck in the back of beyond, it's clearly difficult for the airline to get you underway again within three hours (though not necessarily impossible). But if you are at a major London airport, the airline might reasonably be expected to be able to either fix the problem speedily or, if not, source for you another flight (theirs or another company's) to get you on your way.

Thus if weather abroad meant that the the incoming flight was not going to make it on time to form your own flight, the airline needs to show it did everything short of "intolerable sacrifices". That's the test they need to meet.

So in conclusion, weather affecting another flight is not an extraordinary circumstance. And even if it were, the airline would need to show it had used all of its resources to find you an alternative flight. Although I am not a lawyer, I think you'd have a good case on either ground - and you only need to persuade the court of one.

antuk

Hi all,

Has anyone tried to claim a GB airways flight operated on a BA flight code.

I tried BA, and they have said that since GB was sold to EasyJet they are liable, EasyJet are saying they didnt own it at the time so its BA.

Who is right?

Thanks

Ich_2

GB was never owned by BA it was a franchise operator owned by a Gibraltar based company, who sold it to Easyjet.
As GB doesn't exist anymore and is classed as dissolved possibly neither of them are responsible

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GB_Airways

Vauban

Ich wrote: »

GB was never owned by BA it was a franchise operator owned by a Gibraltar based company, who sold it to Easyjet.
As GB doesn't exist anymore and is classed as dissolved possibly neither of them are responsible

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GB_Airways

I agree that the code share is a red herring. But if GB airways were bought by Easyjet (I understand they were) then Easyjet are liable. If you buy a company, you get it's liabilities, as well as its assets.

little_princess

Vauban you are a star :beer:

Would it be ok if I pinched some of your wording to put in the NBA, as I think it would really help her case?

She honestly thought her claim was dead in the water as she had no proof of which airport her flight had come from let alone whether it had been having bad weather! and as she had not claimed off her holiday insurance either, thought she had lost any chance of claiming back any money at all :T

Vauban

little_princess wrote: »

Vauban you are a star :beer:

Would it be ok if I pinched some of your wording to put in the NBA, as I think it would really help her case?

She honestly thought her claim was dead in the water as she had no proof of which airport her flight had come from let alone whether it had been having bad weather! and as she had not claimed off her holiday insurance either, thought she had lost any chance of claiming back any money at all :T

Please use whatever might be helpful - it's what I wrote it for.;)

Your Aunt needs to write her NBA to Thomson airways. They're not really playing nice (see the postings in the Thomson thread) so she may actually need to commence leal proceedings.

LIMPIT_2

Can anyone advise what my next step should be please ;
We were delayed by nearly 6 hours at Innsbruck Airport waiting for a Monarch flight to arrive from Gatwick.
After reading the tips on this site, I contacted Monarch, completed their application form for compensation and was looking forward in receiving the guideline amount of 250 euros.
Received letter from Monarch stating that " Under European Laws, where the disruption is caused by an "extraordinary circumstance" which the airline was reasonably unable to prevent, the carrier is not obliged to pay compensation"
Monarchs records show that the aircraft developed a flight deck switch fault which affected the aircrafts emergency lighting, this rendered the aircraft unserviceable and unsafe to operate.
Engineers attended the aircraft and established a replacement switch was required that was sourced and shipped to Gatwick and this caused the delay.
And as a result Monarch very conveniently consider the circumstances of this delay as being "extraordinary" and outside their control, so they are unable to accept the claim for compensation.
I would really appreciate any further help