Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

tdw87uk

Hi - am in middle of discussions with AF following a delay back in 2008.

Used initial template and got the following reply:

Thank you for your recent communication regarding the disruption to your flight AF1169 from Manchester to Paris Charles de Gaulle on 28 July 2008 and the consequent delay on arrival at your final destination.
I am sorry for any inconvenience the disruption to your journey may have caused.
I can assure that this in no way reflects the standard of service we aim to provide.
Your flight was delayed as a result of an unexpected problem with the breaking gear of the flight arriving from Paris, which caused the plane to return to the stand after it was already on the runaway.
We took all the reasonable measures we could under these particular circumstances and every effort was made in order to offer you the best possible care and assistance.
According to EU recommendations, airline passengers are entitled to compensation in case of delays longer than 3 hours - unless the delay was caused by extraordinary circumstances over which we could not exercise any influence.
We have carefully considered your request and taken into account all relevant details for your delayed flight. Consequently, we confirm that the circumstances which caused this delay are considered 'extraordinary' according to the European Union regulation.
As a result, I must respectfully decline your request for legal compensation.
Thank you for allowing us this opportunity to clarify our position in this matter.
I do hope that we will have an early opportunity to serve your travel needs again in the future.

I then replied with detail from ruling about what was Extraordinary Circumstances and have now had the following reply:

I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the reasons behind my negative original reply.
While a technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation and/or delay of a flight is not covered by the concept of `extraordinary circumstances' in itself, it could not be ruled out that technical problems are exceptional circumstances to the extent that they stem from events which are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control.
With this decision in mind I have carefully re-examined the circumstances of the technical failure which caused the delay of the aircraft leaving from Charles de Gaulle to Manchester and consequently of your flight from Manchester back to Charles de Gaulle.
Our records show that the breaking gear problem with the aircraft planned to operate your flight cannot be considered as inherent in the normal exercise of Air France's activity in this specific case.
To explain: the inspection of the breaking gear is included in not only the usual minimum maintenance of the aircraft but in fact is an item which forms part of our additional pre-departure checks, which exceeds the minimum maintenance rules.
The breaking gear functioned correctly both at the time of its maintenance inspection and during the pre-departure check.
It later developed a fault, despite it showing to be in its usual working condition up to and during the pre-departure checks shortly before the scheduled time of departure and having passed all prior maintenance inspections (the plane was actually already taxing on the runaway when the fault presented itself).
As such, this unexpected flight safety shortcoming is viewed as outside the normal exercise of the activity of Air France and completely beyond its actual control.
Air France takes all measures to provide its customers with the best service and care, as much in terms of quality and safety as in punctuality, however despite our very best efforts, the reality is that there are rare occasions when - due to a random mechanical failure that could not have been foreseen through usual means of identification - we are unable to deliver our usual standard of service.
I thank you for allowing me this opportunity of explanation and I am sorry for any disappointment our position may cause.
However in view of our further investigation, our response to your claim for compensation under EU Regulation 261/2004 remains the same.
We hope that you will be satisfied with this explanation and that, despite your actual sentiments, you will allow us to serve your travel needs again in the near future.

HELP - where to go from here?

111KAB

tdw87uk wrote: »

HELP - where to go from here?

Post on appropriate thread then sounds like NBA followed by Court action to me

4ze

111KAB wrote: »

Exactly why you should post on appropriate thread as if it is not an EU airline (??) then no compensation is payable.

Centipede100 wrote: »

As 111KAB has already stated, post in the correct airline thread with the full story rather than drip feeding us one sentence at a time...

ok guys point noted about posting in correct thread. i did already acknowledge this

I understand that I would still qualify for compensation as it is an EU airline (BA) flying to an EU airport

Devonblue

Thank you for the article in the Daily Telegraph this week. We had a 9 hour delay on a 2 hour flight last summer with Thomson. So your template letter, for which again thanks, is on its way to Luton. Will keep you informed of progress. And there was me thinking the EC was a waste of money!!

gordies

Hello all,

EU airline, taxi-ing to takeoff and suffered engine failure. Airline claiming Extraordinary Circumstances and refusing to pay compensation. They did provide hotel and refreshments for 30 hours whilst waiting on a part as they could not even provide a replacement aircraft.

How do I go about winning this one as they will not play ball at all.

thanks.

maghater

If a plane is involved in an accident with say a ground support vehicle, resulting in it being withdrawn from service and causing delay, can the airline claim this as a technical issue?

JPears

Centipede - you have the patience of a saint...

Vauban

Here's a philosophical one for you, Centipede: If a tree falls onto an airplane in a forest, and no one hears it, will Monarch still claim extraordinary circumstances?

stevemarr_2

stevemarr wrote: »

as i mentioned previously-i had a 5 hr delay on 19th june 2012-blocked toilet-on all accounts length of delay etc it qualifies for compensation-the caa seem unable or unwilling to enforce my standard claim-hence as mentioned in multiple replies over last few weeks ccj seems the only route-it is likely that cases will be settled by thomas cook to avoid ccjs being actually made-as their bankers would probably consider tough action should these start to appear-i worked for a bank for 20 years.there is a set proceedure to do this yourself,or you could take up the advice mentioned many times of checking if you have legal expenses cover.i note that some have had success with easyjet and no doubt their stronger financial position and hope of subsequent goodwill has influenced their decisions.

update used solicitors and lots of phone calls direct to thomas cook legal dept-got cheque £1260:j-£210 per passenger

JPears

Centipede100 wrote: »

Yes, because they can't see the wood from the trees...!!:p

:rotfl:Bazinga!