MSE News: Flight delay compensation changes move closer 19 December 2013 at 6:42PM in Flight Delay Compensation 26 replies 3.5K views

Former_MSE_Helen

"The European Union's Transport Committee has backed 600 amendments to existing rules on air passenger rights..."

Read the full story:

Flight delay compensation changes move closer




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.

David_e

Airlines will love it!

"For example, technical faults do not count as "extraordinary", except in the following circumstances:

• Where they've been caused by the plane manufacturer (such as Airbus or Boeing) and are formally acknowledged as such by the manufacturer or a competent authority.
• Where they've been found during a maintenance check before the flight, and crucially, they affect the flight's safety."

Up to 2,500km (all flights) 3 hr €300
2,500km+ (flights within the EU only) 5hr+ €400
2,500km-6,000km (flights between an EU and non-EU) 5hr+ €400
6,000km+ (flights between an EU and non-EU ) 7hr+ €600

Dr_Watson

David_e wrote: »

Airlines will love it!

"For example, technical faults do not count as "extraordinary", except in the following circumstances:

• Where they've been caused by the plane manufacturer (such as Airbus or Boeing) and are formally acknowledged as such by the manufacturer or a competent authority.
• Where they've been found during a maintenance check before the flight, and crucially, they affect the flight's safety."

Up to 2,500km (all flights) 3 hr €300
2,500km+ (flights within the EU only) 5hr+ €400
2,500km-6,000km (flights between an EU and non-EU) 5hr+ €400
6,000km+ (flights between an EU and non-EU ) 7hr+ €600

Get ready for the airlines producing this as part of their evidence/ bundles for upcoming court cases.
Remember this ....it is still only in 'draft' status and until fully implemented has no legal standing at all.
Be ready to counter this with the regulation as it stands at present and the case law that surrounds it....
Underline and print in bold as part of your bundle/ evidence to counteract this if the particular airline you are claiming against tries to use this.

David_e

Dr_Watson wrote: »

Get ready for the airlines producing this as part of their evidence/ bundles for upcoming court cases

I was assuming (possibly incorrectly) that this would be in a new regulation having effect from some future date.

Dr_Watson

David_e wrote: »

I was assuming (possibly incorrectly) that this would be in a new regulation having effect from some future date.

According to the article from 2015 at the earliest.
But no doubt the airlines will start spouting this now (as they have done in many cases with the first draft of guidance that was released earlier this year) to try and pull a fast one over any not so learned judge....
My advice is to be ready for this if you have an upcoming court case..

JPears

Dr_Watson wrote: »

Get ready for the airlines producing this as part of their evidence/ bundles for upcoming court cases.
Remember this ....it is still only in 'draft' status and until fully implemented has no legal standing at all.
Be ready to counter this with the regulation as it stands at present and the case law that surrounds it....
Underline and print in bold as part of your bundle/ evidence to counteract this if the particular airline you are claiming against tries to use this.

But a maintenance check is NOT a pre flight check. The arguement is always in the wording - its definition. A maintenance check is a planned part of any servicing that that an aircraft receives. It is very distinct from a pre flight safety/systems check. These 2 paragraphs alone more or less confirm and reinforce HHJ Platts.

Dr_Watson

JPears wrote: »

But a maintenance check is NOT a pre flight check. The arguement is always in the wording - its definition. A maintenance check is a planned part of any servicing that that an aircraft receives. It is very distinct from a pre flight safety/systems check. These 2 paragraphs alone more or less confirm and reinforce HHJ Platts.

Totally agree JP.
But does the average litigant know this? Especially when the airlines are trying to use this like I said ....to pull a fast one.
Be prepared is my advice

richardw

David_e wrote: »

......."For example, technical faults do not count as "extraordinary", kexcept in the following circumstances:
......
[*]Where they've been found during a maintenance check before the flight, and crucially, they affect the flight's safety."
[/LIST]....

How difficult would it be to take "reasonable measures" to avoid such circumstances having a serious impact on flight operations?

Vauban

Hold your horses, people.Is this article correct?

Here's the link to the Transport Committee's report:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/tran/pr/1002/1002222/1002222en.pdf

You will see that on the principle of technical problems being extraordinary, the committee says:

Extraordinary circumstances:

Air carriers can be exempted from compensation payment if they can prove that problems are due to certain extraordinary circumstances. However, there is much uncertainty about the interpretation of this term. Relevant judgements of the European Court of Justice should help to formulate the EU provisions in a more trustful way. The list which is annexed to this Regulation is intended to serve as an aid. Here, special attention is dedicated to the concept of ‘technical problems’. In fact, airlines often justify delays or cancellations on the grounds of ‘technical problems’, leaving the passenger without any possibility of understanding the circumstances.

The revised Regulation should give clearer guidance to the kind of extraordinary circumstances under which the air carrier does not have to pay compensation. The rapporteur has made substantial amendments to the non-exhaustive list annexed to the Commission’s proposal. The most far-reaching amendment relates to the inclusion or exclusion of technical problems under extraordinary circumstances. The rapporteur agrees with the Court’s decision in the Wallentin-Herrmann case that – as a general rule – technical defects do not represent exceptional circumstances. Technical problems should exceptionally be considered as extraordinary circumstances if they are caused by circumstances that are not manageable by the operating air carrier, that affect flight safety and that make the normal continuation of the flight impossible.

Moreover, an amendment should clarify that even though a flight disruption might be caused by extraordinary circumstances, it must be proven that the air carrier had correctly taken all measures in order to avoid the cancellation. Only if both conditions are met should the air carrier be exempt from the payment of compensation (Article 5(3)).

Pages 67 to 70 of the report proposes amendments to the Commission's own draft annex of a non-exhaustive list of extraordinary circumstances. I can see nothing in here to justify the assertion that faults found during pre-flight maintenance checks would constitute ECs.

richardw

Thanks Vauban.

David_e

Vauban wrote: »

Hold your horses, people.Is this article correct?

MSE News reporter getting something wrong?! As if!

Page 70 of your link, Vauban, contains the offending words but I can't for the life of me work out what the significance is of "[FONT=&quot]Text proposed by the Commission Amendment" as distinct from [/FONT]"[FONT=&quot]Amendment[/FONT]".

Panic over??

[FONT=&quot]Annex 1[/FONT]
Regulation (EC) No 261/2004
Annex 1 – paragraph 2 – point i

[FONT=&quot]Text proposed by the Commission Amendment[/FONT]
i. technical problems [FONT=&quot]inherent in the normal operation of the aircraft, such as a problem identified during the routine maintenance or during the pre-flight check of the aircraft or which arises due to failure to correctly carry out such maintenance or pre-flight check; [/FONT]and

[FONT=&quot]Amendment[/FONT]
i. technical problems [FONT=&quot]due to events which, in view of their nature or origin, are inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and which are in reality within its control; [/FONT]and

Or. De

[FONT=&quot]Justification
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]According to the judgment in the case of Wallentin/Herrmann, technical defects are not exceptional circumstances. They are part of normal airline operations, and it must be possible to take measures to deal with them.[/FONT]