Airlines laughing all the way to the CAA

the_laughing_cow

Further to recent articles on flight cancellations/ delay I fail to see how the new guidance can help matters. Under unexplained flight safety shortcomings there is a section 26 that basically says any other technical reason is an extraordinary circumstance. This in effect is a catch all get out for the airlines who continually quote extraordinary circumstances. I believe ec261/2004 was judged on because far too many airlines claim these circumstances. I have a letter from the CAA stating it appears you have a case under ec261/2004 and referred it back to Flybe, who are now citing number 25 and 26 of the new guidelines in order not to pay the claim. Has anyone actually been to court since the printing of the new guidelines? And if so what was the result?

111KAB

Yes

Think you will find almost everyone who posts/reads this MSE site (airline delays) will realise/comment that the CAA are too close to the airlines and your multiple choice 'ticks' could be included in three of the boxes and still make sense ie I think airlines are to close AND I would like an independent arrangement AND definitive answers!

greeneyedlad

the_laughing_cow wrote: »

Further to recent articles on flight cancellations/ delay I fail to see how the new guidance can help matters. Under unexplained flight safety shortcomings there is a section 26 that basically says any other technical reason is an extraordinary circumstance. This in effect is a catch all get out for the airlines who continually quote extraordinary circumstances. I believe ec261/2004 was judged on because far too many airlines claim these circumstances. I have a letter from the CAA stating it appears you have a case under ec261/2004 and referred it back to Flybe, who are now citing number 25 and 26 of the new guidelines in order not to pay the claim. Has anyone actually been to court since the printing of the new guidelines? And if so what was the result?

i find this really worrying as i have started small claims proceedings against thomson & monarch

111KAB

Yes

greeneyedlad wrote: »

i find this really worrying as i have started small claims proceedings against thomson & monarch

If you understand Wallentin you should not be worried. The guidelines are not the law. Stick to the law and not some rubbish dreamt up by the airlines and the CAA.

the_laughing_cow

That's why I am asking Greeneyed lad as I too have started court proceedings against Flybe. I am continuing though as this is guidance only and no precedent as yet. Only the court can decide and I think that this flies in the face of EC261/2004. I am looking forward to what European courts have to say.

the_laughing_cow

Thank you 111KAB

romanby1

Yes

111KAB wrote: »

If you understand Wallentin you should not be worried. The guidelines are not the law. Stick to the law and not some rubbish dreamt up by the airlines and the CAA.

I agree the Guidelines are NOT the law they are just guidelines.
If your claim comes under one or more of the various court rulings you have to put those cases forward to the airline forcefully or in the last resort to the court.
If the airline can see you are savvy with the regulation and the rulings they in many cases will cave in.
It is in their interest to keep their costs down and the sums involved in settling out of court in many cases is is more economic. They have to involve a legal team at large expense, your time costs nothing in most cases, only a bit of hard work.
In many cases it is up to the claimant to make a judgement call to decide if the court costs of bringing a claim (which in many cases are a small %age of the claim) are worth it and it will not cause personal financial hardship if the case goes to court and you fail.
Personally I was absolutely livid at the lack of care and treatment we received during our delay I was determined to do all I could to get the better of them. Our settlement letter came 3 days before the papers had to be delivered to the court and I insisted the payment was in our bank account before that date otherwise the papers were going to be delivered. It was there next day.
The answer is don't be a chicken call their bluff give them an air of personal confidence even if you are not all that confident.