Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

Liberty1577

chrissiejw2002 wrote: »

thanks will download the template and try it out :rotfl:

Just wondered if you had any joy with Etihad. I was delayed on the Manchester flight on 8th Feb 2013. Surprise surprise they claimed extraordinary circumstances but offered etihad guest miles as way of apology for the inconvenience! Just debating my next step.

Liberty1577

Bigmacandfries wrote: »

What constitutes extraordinary circumstances in a flight delay?We were delayed 374 minutes outbound with Etihad from Manchester to Manila via Abu Dabi!Due to the delay we missed our connecting flight in Abu Dabi and were put in a hotel till our rebooked flight early in the morning.
"delay on flight EY022, from Manchester to Abu Dhabi on 08 February 2013, was due to the late arrival of the inbound aircraft as a result of disruption within the aircraft fleet."
"Technical problems requiring an aircraft to be taken out of operation, and the resulting availability of a replacement aircraft are considered to constitute extraordinary circumstances under Article 5(3) of the Regulation No 261/2004"
Does this explanation justify there refusal to pay compensation or is this just a cop out?

Just wondered if you took this any further? I was on the same flight and missed our connecting flight to Bangkok. I got the same reply as you and 20,000 guest miles as a gesture of goodwill. Just deciding what to do next and wondered if you'd had any luck?

Gerco14

Caz3121 wrote: »

Gerco14 - best to go over to the thread specifically for Monarch delays...you will see many people get similar letters so you may need to get ready for court action. You can also check the first post in that thread, your flight may already be mentioned

Thanks Caz3121

maghater

Liberty1577 wrote: »

Just wondered if you took this any further? I was on the same flight and missed our connecting flight to Bangkok. I got the same reply as you and 20,000 guest miles as a gesture of goodwill. Just deciding what to do next and wondered if you'd had any luck?

Ball is in your court, firstly have they proved extraordinary circumstances that couldn't have been avoided etc etc. , look at the list of ecs provided in recital 14 of regs. Secondly read the conclusion to Wallentin.

paulsdove

Hi. Im after a bit of advice.

Myself and my wife travelled to Mexico, from Manchester in May 2008. The thomas cook flight back was delayed by 17 hours, due to a mechanical fault (i think there was a problem with the door)

I have written to Thomas Cook asking for compensation, using the template letter, and I received a letter back today.

It said that the specific circumstances surrounding the flight were of a technical nature, and were therefore extraordinary. They were extraordinary as TC took all reasonable precautions necessary to avoid the situation, and despite proactive meassures the problem could not of been foreseen.

In line with Regulation 261/2004 a payment of compensation would not be applicable in this case.

I would like to know if I should push this further, or should I let it now drop (as Im not sure what this extraoridnary means). If I shoudl carry on, can someone give me a few tips as to the next letter I should write, and whom too.

Many thanks.

Paul

Caz3121

Best reading and posting in the Thomas Cook thread

Poundzhound

Can anyone let me know if Flightstats lists all flights - and how far back?

romanby1

paulsdove wrote: »

Hi. Im after a bit of advice.

Myself and my wife travelled to Mexico, from Manchester in May 2008. The thomas cook flight back was delayed by 17 hours, due to a mechanical fault (i think there was a problem with the door)

I have written to Thomas Cook asking for compensation, using the template letter, and I received a letter back today.

It said that the specific circumstances surrounding the flight were of a technical nature, and were therefore extraordinary. They were extraordinary as TC took all reasonable precautions necessary to avoid the situation, and despite proactive meassures the problem could not of been foreseen.

In line with Regulation 261/2004 a payment of compensation would not be applicable in this case.

I would like to know if I should push this further, or should I let it now drop (as Im not sure what this extraoridnary means). If I shoudl carry on, can someone give me a few tips as to the next letter I should write, and whom too.

Many thanks.

Paul

Sound like b******t Issue an NBA

Liberty1577

maghater wrote: »

Ball is in your court, firstly have they proved extraordinary circumstances that couldn't have been avoided etc etc. , look at the list of ecs provided in recital 14 of regs. Secondly read the conclusion to Wallentin.

Thanks for the reply. I don't think they have proven ecs. They stated

The delay "was due to the late arrival of the inbound aircraft as a result of disruption within the aircraft fleet."

And that "the aircraft that was scheduled to undertake the flight from Manchester became unserviceable at another station and had to be withdrawn from service temporarily. The reason for this was neither, of a kind typically occurring on our aircraft, nor of a kind known to have affected the aircraft in question before."

"Technical problems requiring an aircraft to be taken out of operation, and the resulting availability of a replacement aircraft are considered to constitute extraordinary circumstances under Article 5(3) of the Regulation No 261/2004."

What does everyone think about their reply?

They also stated "we do not hold spare aircraft on the ground at Manchester". Would it not be a reasonable measure to hold an aircraft at Manchester?

Not to mention we are fairly certain we were told on the day that our plane had been sent to pick up passengers is Milan and we had to wait for a replacement from South Africa. Just wish I could prove it!!

Vauban

Liberty1577 wrote: »

"Technical problems requiring an aircraft to be taken out of operation, and the resulting availability of a replacement aircraft are considered to constitute extraordinary circumstances under Article 5(3) of the Regulation No 261/2004."

What does everyone think about their reply?

My thoughts are very anglo-saxon!

There is nothing in Article 5(3) of the Regulation 261/2004 that could possibly bear out this interpretation. To suggest otherwise is to come close to telling a big fat fib. If the airline is prepared to mislead you so contemptuously, you have only one option left: which is to initiate court proceedings. Given it sounds like your delay was the result of operational problems, following a technical fault with another plane, I'm willing to bet that they'd settle pretty sharpish than argue their (non-case) in court.