Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

kenseaton

I've just had an email from the CAA rejecting my bid for compensation from easyJet for an Edinburgh - Nice flight in May 2012. The flight was nearly six hours late due to a technical problem and it spoiled my wife's surprise birthday celebrations as seven of our guests were on the plane (restaurant cancelled etc).

After apologising for the lengthy delay in replying, the CAA's Michael Linstead says: "it is our view that the disruption of flight EZY6961 is of a type which means that the airline does not need to pay compensation. It appears from the documentation provided that there was a type of systems failure which means that, under these specific circumstances, the disruption was beyond the control of the airline and could not have been avoided. It is our view therefore that this disruption falls under the "extraordinary circumstances" exception of EC261/200".

He adds: "Unfortunately we are unable to take your case any further on the compensation part of your claim." He says this is "disappointing" (I'll say!) but our only remaining option is to go to county court where, he believes, I would lose.

I'm surprised by this as a previous forum post from EugeneB on 02-01-2013, 11:54 AM reports on his success in getting compensation from easyJet on what sounds like the same flight.

Two things: What does Mr Linstead's reference to the "compensation part" of the claim mean? And how does this sit with the recent changes to the "extraordinary circumstances" rules?

Thanks for what is a wonderful website! Martin Lewis should be knighted.
Ken

111KAB

kenseaton wrote: »

Two things: What does Mr Linstead's reference to the "compensation part" of the claim mean? And how does this sit with the recent changes to the "extraordinary circumstances" rules?

The CAA are funded and on the side of the airlines. Seems to me you have a valid case but you may be concerned if EasyJet raise the CAA response in any court case so may be worth approaching a no win no fee rather than walking away to see if they will take on. Your post should have been on the EasyJet thread.

Vauban

111KAB wrote: »

The CAA are funded and on the side of the airlines. Seems to me you have a valid case but you may be concerned if EasyJet raise the CAA response in any court case so may be worth approaching a no win no fee rather than walking away to see if they will take on. Your post should have been on the EasyJet thread.

There have been some examples of claimants being refused by the CAA (though it's rare to get a view from them at all) and then going on to win in court. In truth though I think you now have a real uphill struggle, since the airline will certainly use your rejection to try to persuade a judge.

As 111KAB says, the CAA are not on the passengers' side. It's a salutary lesson in the perils of involving them: either they will do nothing or you or, if you're really unlucky, will actually damage your claim.

bartrein

Hi All

Reading this forum i've come across the often quoted Dawson v Thompson Ltd case in which the court has ruled that the time limit for claiming a flight delay refund should not be determined based on Montreal Convention but by the legislation of each EU member state instead.

I know that for UK the time limit is 6 years but i am wondering how do you actually determine which EU member legislation should be applied?

For example in my case :

- i have booked a flight with a Hungarian airline Wizzair
- i live in the UK and have purchased the ticket from here (not sure if it's relevant at all)
- it was a return flight from London to Gdansk (Poland)
- the second leg of the flight (From Gdansk to London) was delayed by more than 3 hours

How do i determine the relevant member state which legislation on time limits should be applied here?

-Is it Hungary - the country where Wizzair is incorporated?
-Poland - the country from which my flight was departing?
-UK - the final destination of the flight ?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Regards
Bart

Vauban

Centipede100 wrote: »

You may start a legal claim in either Poland or the UK and the time limits would be those that apply in either of those 2 EU states.

I think I read that Poland's statute of limitation is three years, so there would be no advantage in trying to start a legal action there rather than the UK from that perspective (and the practical challenges would be significant).

I have read a few stories on here from people who have taken on Wizzair and won. Have a search.

Emloof

Hi All

Once the an initial delay has been caused by bad weather, does this mean an airline is no longer liable to pay compensation, even if their operational decisions and failings add significantly to the total delay?

My concrete example:
While we were waiting at the gate in airport A, the incoming plane that was scheduled to take us to our destination was diverted to a nearby alternative airport (B), due to a combination of strength and direction of wind, and the airplane type (other planes continued to land & take off without problems). Airport B was ca. 1h drive away, and the decision was taken to take all passengers by bus to that airport. The delay caused by weather was therefore max. 2.5h - 3h (getting buses in place, loading luggage and passengers, transferring passengers to the gate/plane at airport .

However, the airline
- decided to economise, by using the same buses to first take passengers of the incoming flight from B to A, then take the passengers of our flight from A to B, thus adding ca. 2.5h to our delay (roughly the time it took to load/unload and transfer the passengers & luggage from the incoming flight).
- gave conflicting & false information to bus drivers and passengers, with regards to transfer of checked-in luggage. This meant that passengers had to spend >0.5h waiting to get their luggage after arriving at B
- operated only two bag-drop desks to process our flight, one of which was not working due to technical problems. this added another 0.5h
- did not communicate effectively, causing confusion and additional delays
- did not prepare the waiting plane in time for passengers arrival. So the plane had to be refueled after all passengers were on board, adding another 0.5h delay.
- managed to get the wrong airport vehicle in place to move the plane from the parking position. Another vehicle had to be organised, adding yet another 0.5h.

The flight eventually started almost 7h after the original take-off time, and arrived accordingly late. At least half of this delay was not due to weather, or another excluded reason, but operational decisions and failings of the airline.

Has anyone experience with claiming compensation under similar circumstances? - Any help would be very much appreciated!

Best,
Emloof

Vauban

Emloof,

I don't think there is a definitive answer to this. I imagine that if this scenario were put before a court a dozen times, you'd win some and lose some, to be honest.

The weather point is relevant if and only if it was impossible to take off from your original airport (the fact that the incoming flight was affected is immaterial).

Then the rest of your case depends upon the "all reasonable measures" test in the Wallentin. Did the airline use all of their resources, short of an intolerable sacrifice, to prevent the delay? You would clearly argue not; they would argue that, in the inevitable chaos and confusion, there was little more they could have done to minimise further the delay to your flight.

My own view is that this would be a tricky one to win.

Emloof

Hi Vauban,

Thanks, good points..

A Ryanair person at the gate of airport A explained that the problem was that the incoming plane could not land (because it was a Boing aircraft, as opposed to the Airbus machines which kept landing). He said taking off would not be a problem (apparently a Ryanair plane had taken off even after our plane was diverted to . So this may be significant here!

I think the airline's confusion argument would be weak, because
- the wind was forecast. Perhaps it was not knowable whether the plane could land. But the possibility/likelihood was.
- I did ask Ryanair personal at airport A whether passengers would need to transfer their own checked luggage at airport B (I had experienced a similar case previously). This was categorically denied. So they appeared to have a procedure, but failed to carry it out. Also, the bus drivers had asked Ryanair to confirm about the same issue, before leaving airport A. There was plenty of time to clearly communicate the correct procedure...

Best,
Emloof

legal_magpie

Emloof wrote: »

Hi All
However, the airline
- decided to economise, by using the same buses to first take passengers of the incoming flight from B to A, then take the passengers of our flight from A to B, thus adding ca. 2.5h to our delay (roughly the time it took to load/unload and transfer the passengers & luggage from the incoming flight).QUOTE]

How do you know this? Do you have evidence as to how many buses were available and if so how long it would have taken to get more? Please remember that under Wallentin the airline has to show that they took reasonable measures not perfection. The test would be as to what was known at the time, not with the benefit of hindsight.

Failure to keep people informed etc is not relevant in cases under the regulations.

The airlines have lost all public sympathy because of their cavalier approach to the regulations and their refusal to deal with proper claims promptly (if at all) but I think you will be in great difficulty in this case.
JJ

humphrer

Hello all

I have a similar query to Emloof and wondered if anyone could give me their thoughts.

We have just been on a package holiday. On departing to the airport the travel company had put passengers for two different flights on our bus. 30 minutes into the journey we were told that there were issues with fog at our intended departure airport and all planes were being diverted to another airport about an hour further away. Fair enough.

When we arrived at the airport the first flight for passengers on our bus had just landed and the appropriate passengers were sent to check in. We were told our flight was circling waiting to land.

Now all this time I had been checking the airlines web site and it detailed a few flights that had been sent to alternative airports, but ours was never on there. I also looked at the flight departure airports for the incoming flight, and it always had the original airport stated. In the end our flight landed and took off from the original intended airport and we were transfered to the alternative airport to meet the flight for the other passengers on our bus.

We were later transfered on to another flight to an alternative airport in the UK and then bussed to our original destination. We were delayed over 4 hours in the end. It was incredibly frustrating.

Is there a claim here? It is actually the fault of the tour operator, not the airline.

Thanks
Rob