Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

David_e

friendofbillw2 wrote: »

I think you are overlooking a fairly major point in your favour and are being too keen to go play the airline on their turf.

Thanks. I take your point - which is important not to lose sight of - and, as you say, they need to get over that hurdle. I was just thinking about what defence they will try to run and one stock response seems to be that it's too expensive to keep spare part X locally.

I'll re-read Wallentin to make sure I have the right "flow chart" of the decision process of the Court.

Vauban

David_e wrote: »

I'm just looking at the Wallentin case decision specifically para 42 which seems to be the key point. It says (my emphasis) the issue is:

... whether ... the air carrier concerned took measures appropriate to the situation, that is to say measures which, at the time of the extraordinary circumstances whose existence the air carrier is to establish, met, inter alia, conditions which were technically and economically viable for that carrier.

I am probably reading too much into the words but, in order to satisfy this requirement, should the airline be able to demonstrate that there was an assessment of what was "technically and economically viable" "at the time", ie, there and then?

Failing that, and assuming they claim that they operate to some agreed plan, presumably sight of that would be helpful. I have no idea what this plan would look like, except I doubt it's a nice simple, single document. Certainly not one that the airline would choose to share.

In the absence of hard evidence, the airline presumably says "it wasn't technically and economically viable" to, say, keep that spare part locally. I say, "well I think it was"! The onus of proof is on them, isn't it? How do they prove technical and economic non-viability?

Any thoughts gratefully received.

My thoughts are that Wallentin is more helpful than you think. The phrase "technically and economically viable" is first use in paragraph 40 (rather than 42). And the following paragraph, 41, defines what viability means:

"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 [post-Sturgeon, delay] of the flight."

That sets a very high bar for the airlines to meet if they are to avoid paying compensation - and that's if you accept that the original delay was "extraordinary" (as FOBw2 notes).

bignick47_2

:mad:

glentoran99 wrote: »

ok so flightmole was a waste of 6 months (or more)

Hi Andrew,

Thank you for your email.

The status of your claim is that the entitlement to 600 Euros per passenger Ec 261/2004 compensation tariff is disputed by the operating air carrier.

You are already aware of this having presented a claim to the airline for the compensation tariff potentially deliverable under Ec 261/2004.

Therefore the status is that you possess an ostensible claim subject to the operable Art 5.3 derogation but you are also the owner of a dispute.

You had previously presented that exact claim to the airline. It was disputed based upon their account of the aircraft suffering a technical defect in Mombassa.

You have not ( so far) presented any complaint to the CAA to investigate the factual circumstances and for them to provide any commentary upon that claim.

I have made a decision on behalf of ALC not to to advance the claim as assigned to ALC any further. As a consequence you should regard the claims as now remaining vested unencumbered in your and your co-passenger's hands.

You have the option to make complaint to the CAA regarding the entitlement you think is due you. I do not make any comment upon the merits.

Indeed given the time that has elapsed it is possible that they may already have advanced an investigation pursuant to another passenger delivery a complaint in respect of the same flight.

Should you consider that you wish to take further action yourself regarding prosecuting the claim then you would be best advised to obtain competent and qualified legal and technical opinion on the merits of the claim.

Therefore I regret that ALC has not been able to obtain any recovery.

Are normal humans expected to understand that????

TJRPLester

I had a delay in my flight (both ways there and back) and Icompleted the form that money expert provided but I required the address. I called the number for Thompsons and they took my compensation claim over the phone. It was an 08444125954 . I was on the phone for about 25 mins and was refunded there and then £706 ( to the person that made the booking) and I told them because I knew my right under the EC Regulation 261/2004 act. However they did not refund me the arrival flight. So again I started the letter to the CAA house then I googled it and was in touch by phone. The lady advised me that I needed to contact the Spainish CAA ( all have the same rules apprantley) because the flight was from Spain and the airline is dening compensation I need to contact Spain. It was a bit diffcuilt but I have emailed them and waiting for them to get back to me. Fingers crossed. Will keep you posted. I have done this all today.[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][/FONT][/FONT]

richardw

glentoran99 wrote: »

ok so flightmole was a waste of 6 months (or more)...

....You have not ( so far) presented any complaint to the CAA to investigate the factual circumstances and for them to provide any commentary upon that claim.

I have made a decision on behalf of ALC not to to advance the claim as assigned to ALC any further....

Seems clear to me.

David_e

Vauban wrote: »

"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 [post-Sturgeon, delay] of the flight."

Thanks V. Part of my original posting concerns your bold text. If we make the big assumption (as you and FOBw2 note) that the first hurdle ("extraordinary") is met, would the airline need to demonstrate some assessment of the "intolerable sacrifices", etc.?

So, for example, if the delay was because component X was said to be not kept on-site and needed to be flown in, would it be a relevant question to ask them to demonstrate how they had reached the conclusion that having that component on-site would have meant an "intolerable sacrifices"? And would it be that component or could they say it would be intolerable to keep all 'spare parts' that might be needed?

VOB72

TJRPLester wrote: »

I had a delay in my flight (both ways there and back) and Icompleted the form that money expert provided but I required the address. I called the number for Thompsons and they took my compensation claim over the phone. It was an 08444125954 . I was on the phone for about 25 mins and was refunded there and then £706 ( to the person that made the booking) and I told them because I knew my right under the EC Regulation 261/2004 act. However they did not refund me the arrival flight. So again I started the letter to the CAA house then I googled it and was in touch by phone. The lady advised me that I needed to contact the Spainish CAA ( all have the same rules apprantley) because the flight was from Spain and the airline is dening compensation I need to contact Spain. It was a bit diffcuilt but I have emailed them and waiting for them to get back to me. Fingers crossed. Will keep you posted. I have done this all today.[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][/FONT][/FONT]

My claim has been with the Spanish CAA for 3 months now - what email address do you have for them please so I can chase it up as there isn't one on any of the documents they sent me?

jars104

Hello Money Savers,

I'm sorry to share a our 'sob story' here but I'd never heard of this legislation until a friend asked how our holiday went and suggested I come straight to this site for some advice.

We are a family of 5 (my wife and I, plus kids of 10, 5 and 3 yrs) and we purchased a package holiday with Thomas Cook, from Gatwick to Antalya, Turkey and then transfers on to Belek. We paid approx £800 extra for what we thought were the best flight times for our kids and then endured a 7hr delay while Thomas Cook attempted to repair a fault on our plane. I won't bore you with the details, but here's the highlights :
-plane scheduled for 935am take off, actual take off 4:39 (according to FightStats). We were given £9 each in refreshment voucers.
- no information from Thomas Cook or Swissport at all during delay, until they were challenged at around 1pm by the group of irate passengers
-we paid £76.50 to reserve our seats, which we didn't get as the plane was swapped for a different, small one and seating was a 'free for all'
- we have a letter from Thomas Cook admitting to unavoidable operational circumstances (we were told the plane had a fault that they were trying to fix, but then couldn't - concerned by the language used here)
- Flight was split in to two, and we luckily had the first flight (others had to endure another 4 hr wait for theirs). Was told that luggage would be added to the manifest in our names, when at the boarding gate was told that one person from each party would have to identify luggage. I had to carry 5 on board bags so that my wife could get the kids on the plane without issue, while I walked around the tarmac trying to identify our luggage from a whole raft of others!
- transfer - brochure says approx 40 mins, rep said 30 mins - turned out to be 1hr 15. Arrived in room approx 2am local time (12am UK time) after leaving home at 6am, by which time there was no food to have at the hotel - we did have drinks in the room
- next day the rep left reception before 10:05 when we arrived late for welcome meeting that was planned for 10am. Another rep called his mobile on our behalf and he came back to see us, saying he had a busy schedule, no care to our delays of last evening. When we asked for hotel info, rep replied that he didn't have much information because he wasn't allowed on site - just in reception. Also said that he didn't have any suitable trips for our family, and then said that he didn't really want to be in Turkey! Wonderful to hear after so many problems.

Lots more to tell - but the good news is that the hotel and staff were fantastic. My issues were purely caused by Thomas Cook and their representatives.

Could anyone now please advise as to how I should tackle this complaint? I am not really looking forward to vouchers off a future Thomas Cook holiday - not after that experience - and was going to write to them detailing all the concerns and issues we experienced with them. Should I simply use the delay template, and then append some further information around the other issues? How much should I seek in compensation based on the legislation - 400 euros for each of us (kids are full paying seats) as it is approx 3000km in distance and 7hrs delay? I read the guide which does indicate that package holidays are not exempt from the legislation.

I'm sorry for all the questions. The events on our departure day really took the shine off our first few days holiday - our first such holiday in 4 years - and the kids were incredibly tired the first couple of days. It was a terrible shame and we were very upset by everything that happened.

Extremely grateful for any advice you guys can offer. Thanks.

Vauban

jars104 wrote: »

Hello Money Savers,

I'm sorry to share a our 'sob story' here but I'd never heard of this legislation until a friend asked how our holiday went and suggested I come straight to this site for some advice.

...

I'm sorry for all the questions. The events on our departure day really took the shine off our first few days holiday - our first such holiday in 4 years - and the kids were incredibly tired the first couple of days. It was a terrible shame and we were very upset by everything that happened.

Extremely grateful for any advice you guys can offer. Thanks.

Yep, this sounds like a real cattle class experience! But you need to put all the stuff that doesn't relate to the delayed flight in another basket, because that's a customer service issue for which there is no (simple) statutory remedy.

So what you need to do is apply to the airline for compensation for the flight delay under EU Regulation 261/04. Read the FAQs on page one - it will take you a couple of hours, so make sure you have a good drink in hand, but they tell you everything you need to know to take this forward. And if you have specific questions not covered in those, then by all means repost.

But for the five of you delayed over three hours to Turkey, I reckon you are due 400 euros each - so 2k euros in total. So well worth perservering for!

jars104

Vauban wrote: »

Yep, this sounds like a real cattle class experience! But you need to put all the stuff that doesn't relate to the delayed flight in another basket, because that's a customer service issue for which there is no (simple) statutory remedy.

So what you need to do is apply to the airline for compensation for the flight delay under EU Regulation 261/04. Read the FAQs on page one - it will take you a couple of hours, so make sure you have a good drink in hand, but they tell you everything you need to know to take this forward. And if you have specific questions not covered in those, then by all means repost.

But for the five of you delayed over three hours to Turkey, I reckon you are due 400 euros each - so 2k euros in total. So well worth perservering for!

Thanks for the speedy response, Vauban. I did read some of the article, not FAQs, earlier today and so understood some of the basic considerations. I'll review the FAQs as you suggest.

Thanks again - will respond soon!