NOW OPEN: the MSE Forum 'Ask An Expert' event. This time we'd like your questions on TRAVEL & HOLIDAY DEALS. Post by Wed and deals expert MSE Oli will answer as many as he can.
MSE News: Flight delay compensation: More could claim thanks to new guidelines
Former_MSE_Helen
Former MSE 2.4K Posts
"More passengers could be able to successfully claim compensation for flight delays, after new guidelines were issued..."
Read the full story:
Flight delay compensation: More could claim thanks to new guidelines
Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.
Flight delay compensation: More could claim thanks to new guidelines
Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides
Replies
The legislation has always clearly stated "of the flight concerned" - the fact airlines can now use something that occurred on a previous flight, albeit with the aircraft they have decided to use for "the flight concerned" is worrying and goes against the wording of the regulation.
I agree the smaller airlines are going to use this as an excuse for delays because they are running on such tight schedules and do not have a spare aircraft.
The whole point of EC 261/2004 was an attempt by the EU parliament to make airlines more user friendly.
This is like giving them a green flag to do what they want with passengers and rescheduling.
Passengers are going to have to make sure the airlines carry out their "Duty of care" responsibilities in line with the regulation. At least we could sue them for lack of care. It would be difficult to defend a £5.00 voucher was satisfactory if you were delayed for over 4 hours.
A further point if you suffer a delay it will still be wise to get the airline to be specific about the cause of the delay (non of the vague and downright lying crap from them that has been repeated many times on this site) and then make a judgemet whether to go ahead with a claim.
The bit that I find confusing is the wording of Note 1; "event has to meet the three criteria, unpredictable, unavoidable and external".
External? I read this as meaning that the circumstances have to meet all three criteria, and the that external means an event entirely out of the control of the airline. In other words, it seems to confirm Wallentin, in that events must be "not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and is beyond the actual control of the carrier on account of its nature or origin".
I would welcome some thoughts on this.....
I had a 12hr delay with Malaysia Airlines in 2006; they refused my complaint; CAA upheld it; Malaysia refused to pay compensation and cite 6yr limit on court action - effectively laughing in my face!
2005 was when the EU 261 regulations came into force.
Though your delay came after this, there is a 6 yr statutory limitation period after which it is not enforceable in the UK courts (5 years in Scotland)
Indeed. So why does the MSE article state "EU rules say passengers whose flights are significantly delayed can, in certain circumstances, claim up to €600 (£516) per person, dating back to 2005." ?
Surely this should read "dating back to 2007 (2008 in Scotland)".
As there was a stay on all cases within the UK, pending the appeal to the ECJ, does the 6yr statutory limitation still apply, or was this 'frozen' for want of a better word, until the stay was lifted?
Because EC261/2004 itself states that people can claim back that far, however the act of limitations prevents people in the UK claiming back past 2006.
MSE will go by the actual ruling, the act of limitations is a loophole for Airlines to get out of paying compensation past a certain date.
On note of the new guidelines, they're still not clear cut enough, they won't change anything at all, in fact in some instances they've given some new defense for the Airlines, no. 19, 20, 21, 23, 25 & 26 in particular. They say technical faults can't be EC's, yet on their list of what is an EC, there's clearly technical faults there, so if you think the new guidelines are going to help people gain compensation that was previously rejected by the airlines you're mistaken.