MSE News: Flight delay compensation: More could claim thanks to new guidelines

Mark2spark

It's already been discussed. The Wallentin and Sturgeon rulings haven't changed.
So nothing new IMO.

ArianSandra

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.

This worries me also - it looks like there's plenty of scope for airlines to claim ecs in these categories. As I read it they can get out of paying if the aircraft has 'been maintained in accordance with the required maintenance programme' - how is this criteria established or verified by a claimant?

Also, could No.15 'airport closure' let them off even where the closure is a regular nightly feature of the schedule? (i.e. plane initially delayed for technical reasons but then further delayed overnight due to normal night closure of destination airport.)

This clarification of ecs seems to give airlines more scope for digging in their heels. Is it safe to continue with legal action?

Vauban

ArianSandra wrote: »

This clarification of ecs seems to give airlines more scope for digging in their heels. Is it safe to continue with legal action?

No Arian. Run for the hills!!!

(These "guidelines" cannot supersede European law - but it won't stop the airlines claiming they do!)

ArianSandra

Vauban wrote: »

No Arian. Run for the hills!!!

(These "guidelines" cannot supersede European law - but it won't stop the airlines claiming they do!)

Was just running off in search of hills when I received Monarch's response to my NBA. Briefly, they are (surprise, surprise) satisfied with their reliance on extraordinary circumstances because "The European Commission has recently published a guideline list of Extraordinary circumstances and according to that list any technical defect which become apparent immediately prior to departure or in-flight which require investigation and/or repair before the aircraft is airworthy for the intended flight is considered an Extraordinary circumstance.”


Apparently my plane “suffered from a right hand PRV (pressure regulating valve) fault before the outbound sector, which meant that it could not operate in icing conditions therefore PRV change was required.” Would it be reasonable to contend under Wallentin that a PRV fault is inherent in the airline’s normal operation?


And any help with this virtually unintelligible paragraph would be much appreciated:
“I also realise that you feel that we cannot maintain the extraordinary defence for your claim as it was reactionary to the PRV fault. If one has regard to recital 15 of Regulation 261/2004 as a whole, it clearly states that, in the context of a delay or cancellation, extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where an event gives rise to the delay or cancellation of one or more flights by an aircraft even though all reasonable measures have been taken to avoid the delay or cancellation. In context therefore, this recital to the Regulation clearly contemplates the possibility that reactionary delays and/or cancellations may be covered by extraordinary circumstances.” :rotfl:

Caz3121

probably better going to the Monarch thread - plenty similar letters there

ArianSandra

Caz3121 wrote: »

probably better going to the Monarch thread - plenty similar letters there

Will do. Sorry confused myself - thought it was connected to the new 'guidelines' featured in this thread heading.

friendofbillw2

Davidvgoliath wrote: »

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.....

Thanks for that David.

That is a VERY important word in those guidelines and will certainly help me if the airlines admit these as 'evidence' of ECs in my case.

friendofbillw2

ArianSandra wrote: »

Was just running off in search of hills when I received Monarch's response to my NBA. Briefly, they are (surprise, surprise) satisfied with their reliance on extraordinary circumstances because "The European Commission has recently published a guideline list of Extraordinary circumstances and according to that list any technical defect which become apparent immediately prior to departure or in-flight which require investigation and/or repair before the aircraft is airworthy for the intended flight is considered an Extraordinary circumstance.”


Apparently my plane “suffered from a right hand PRV (pressure regulating valve) fault before the outbound sector, which meant that it could not operate in icing conditions therefore PRV change was required.” Would it be reasonable to contend under Wallentin that a PRV fault is inherent in the airline’s normal operation?


And any help with this virtually unintelligible paragraph would be much appreciated:
“I also realise that you feel that we cannot maintain the extraordinary defence for your claim as it was reactionary to the PRV fault. If one has regard to recital 15 of Regulation 261/2004 as a whole, it clearly states that, in the context of a delay or cancellation, extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where an event gives rise to the delay or cancellation of one or more flights by an aircraft even though all reasonable measures have been taken to avoid the delay or cancellation. In context therefore, this recital to the Regulation clearly contemplates the possibility that reactionary delays and/or cancellations may be covered by extraordinary circumstances.” :rotfl:

More nonsense from Monarch.

What part of a fault occurring 'before the outbound sector' (I assume you were delayed on the later inbound sector) is IMMEDIATELY prior to departure of your flight?

What you may have seen described here as 'knock on effects' are what they call 'reactionary delays'. I believe what their unintelligible paragraph is saying is that they can rely on the original ECs to deny you compensation for a knock on delay.

But it is up to them to show that they did take 'all reasonable measures' ('short of intolerable sacrifices' according to the case law) to prevent the delay.

maghater

Yip, lost my court case on paragraph 19, damage caused to aicraft by collision on the ground. Sturgeon para 68 (80 in the appeal) ...."is without prejudice to air carriers rights to seek compensation from any person who caused the delay including third parties........, nor does it appear unreasonable for those obligations initially to be borne by the air carrier....". So said the Judgement of the Court (grand chamber) 23/10/2012. Clear as day to me, they are saying yes mishaps happen, and we accept that they may involve outside agencies, however it is up to you to pay up, and claim back from the offending party later (a bit like lost luggage when you claim from the airline even though no airline employee probably ever touched it). So a bunch of airline friendly bods can get together, completely ignore the ruling of the Grand Chamber , and issue their own list. Bloody hell no wonder big business is so pro EU.

maghater

ArianSandra wrote: »

This worries me also - it looks like there's plenty of scope for airlines to claim ecs in these categories. As I read it they can get out of paying if the aircraft has 'been maintained in accordance with the required maintenance programme' - how is this criteria established or verified by a claimant?

Also, could No.15 'airport closure' let them off even where the closure is a regular nightly feature of the schedule? (i.e. plane initially delayed for technical reasons but then further delayed overnight due to normal night closure of destination airport.)

This clarification of ecs seems to give airlines more scope for digging in their heels. Is it safe to continue with legal action?

Bottom line is that NEBs, are not fit for purpose, it is like asking Turkeys to regulate the nations eating habits for Christmas. What is the point in us as tax payers paying a fortune for a European Court that is incapable of producing a piece of legislation that is unenforceable .