MSE News: Flight delay compensation changes move closer

edited 30 November -1 at 1:00AM in Flight Delay Compensation
26 replies 3.5K views
2

Replies

  • VaubanVauban Forumite
    4.7K Posts
    Eighth Anniversary Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭
    To be clear, there are two European Union proposals to amend 261/04 (the Regulation): a proposal by the Commission, and a subequent proposal to amend the Commission's revision by the European Parliament. The Commission's proposal can be found here:

    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2013:0130:FIN:EN:PDF

    Page 30 is where their draft guidelines can be found.

    So you will see that the "Amendment" is the amendment to the Commission's proposed amendment, as it were.

    Anyhow, the rather obvious point in all this is that neither the Commission nor the EU Parliament have argued that technical faults discovered through maintenance are extraordinary. Both agreed that they would not be.

    So this is a clear error from the MSE author - I pm'd her this morning, but have heard nothing back.
  • 111KAB111KAB Forumite
    3.6K Posts
    Dear xxxxxx,
    I thought you would be pleased to know that on 17th December 2013 the European Parliament’s Transport Committee signed off new rules on airline passenger rights allowing passengers to take one carry-on bag, duty-free goods and handbags onto planes for free. The reforms set common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers for cancelled or delayed flights and air carrier liability for passengers and baggage. The reforms also include more clarity on what constitutes “extraordinary circumstances” in which compensation is not paid to passengers. We have voted for an exhaustive list and removed non-extraordinary measures.
    Further information can be read here and I have attached Annex 1 with a copy of the exhaustive list in the column on the right:
    http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+IM-PRESS+20131217IPR31104+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN
    There still needs to be a plenary vote involving all MEPs, but I am confident that the Transport Committees’ position will hold. Then we must hope that the Council of the EU (made up of relevant Ministers from the Member States) does not water it down.
    Thank you again for your correspondence.
    Yours sincerely,
    Phil Bennion MEP
  • 111KAB111KAB Forumite
    3.6K Posts
    Dear xxxxxx,

    In reply to your e-mail of 29 November 2013, I can confirm that the European Ombudsman has indeed not yet taken a decision with regard to the complaint regarding the list of extraordinary circumstances prepared by the National Enforcement Bodies (NEBs). However in the meantime, as explained in my previous e-mail, the Commission has revised the first page of the document in view of the comments that were received from the Ombudsman in his request for information to the Commission.

    As regards the proposed revision of air passenger rights, you can find all the information about the proposal on the following webpage:

    http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kallas/headlines/news/2013/03/passenger-rights-air-revision_en.htm.

    For this proposal, the Commission undertook an extensive consultation of all interested stakeholders. We received more than 400 contributions to the public consultation which were then taken into account in the Commission's impact assessment:

    http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/passengers/consultations/2012-03-11-apr_en.htm.

    Yours sincerely,


    Jean-Louis Colson
    Head of Unit

    download?mid=2%5f0%5f0%5f1%5f460959%5fAItUfbwAAA4nUrRuMAAAAPoghZI&pid=2&fid=Inbox&inline=1&appid=YahooMailNeo
    European Commission
    Directorate General for Mobility and TransportUnit D4 - Passenger rightsDM28 5/57B-1040 Brussels/Belgium+32 229-60995
  • JPearsJPears Forumite
    4.9K Posts
    Tenth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭
    111KAB wrote: »
    Dear xxxxxx,
    I thought you would be pleased to know that on 17th December 2013 the European Parliament’s Transport Committee signed off new rules on airline passenger rights allowing passengers to take one carry-on bag, duty-free goods and handbags onto planes for free. The reforms set common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers for cancelled or delayed flights and air carrier liability for passengers and baggage. The reforms also include more clarity on what constitutes “extraordinary circumstances” in which compensation is not paid to passengers. We have voted for an exhaustive list and removed non-extraordinary measures.
    Further information can be read here and I have attached Annex 1 with a copy of the exhaustive list in the column on the right:
    http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+IM-PRESS+20131217IPR31104+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN
    There still needs to be a plenary vote involving all MEPs, but I am confident that the Transport Committees’ position will hold. Then we must hope that the Council of the EU (made up of relevant Ministers from the Member States) does not water it down.
    Thank you again for your correspondence.
    Yours sincerely,
    Phil Bennion MEP
    I could not find said annexes in the above press release?
    So this could be approved shortly after the Huzar appeal appeal?
    If you're new. read The FAQ and Vauban's Guide

    The alleged Ringleader.........
  • 111KAB111KAB Forumite
    3.6K Posts
    JPears wrote: »
    I could not find said annexes in the above press release?
    So this could be approved shortly after the Huzar appeal appeal?


    Apologies but the attachment does not reproduce very well but for the sake of completeness ......


    Proposal for a regulation


    Annex 1 – Extraordinary Circumstances


    Text proposed by the Commission

    Compromise Amendment 28
    'Annex: non-exhaustive list of circumstances considered as extraordinary circumstances for the purposes of this Regulation
    'Annex:  exhaustive list of circumstances considered as extraordinary circumstances for the purposes of this Regulation
    1. The following circumstances shall be considered as extraordinary:
    1. The following circumstances shall be considered as extraordinary:
    i. natural disasters rendering impossible the safe operation of the flight;
    i. natural disasters rendering impossible the safe operation of the flight;
    ii. technical problems which are not inherent in the normal operation of the aircraft, such as the identification of a defect during the flight operation concerned and which prevents the normal continuation of the operation; or a hidden manufacturing defect revealed by the manufacturer or a competent authority and which impinges on flight safety;
    ii. technical problems inflicting the aircraft which are directly caused by a hidden manufacturing defect formally acknowledged as such by the manufacturer or a competent authority arisen during the maintenance check preceding the flight or after the aircraft has been released to service, which impinges on flight safety;

    iii damage caused by bird strike
    iii. security risks, acts of sabotage or terrorism rendering impossible the safe operation of the flight;
    iv. war, political unrest, acts of sabotage or terrorism rendering impossible the safe operation of the flight
    iv. life-threatening health risks or medical emergencies necessitating the interruption or deviation of the flight concerned;
    v. [...] health risks or medical emergencies necessitating the interruption or deviation of the flight concerned;
    v. air traffic management restrictions or closure of airspace or an airport;

    vi unforeseen air traffic management restrictions or the unforeseen closure of the airspace, including run-way closure by the authorities
    vi. meteorological conditions incompatible with flight safety; and
    vii. meteorological conditions incompatible with flight safety or  having damaged the aircraft in flight or on the tarmac after service release and rendering impossible the safe operation of the flight; and
    vii. labour disputes at the operating air carrier or at essential service providers such as airports and Air Navigation Service Providers.
    viii. unforeseen labour disputes at the operating air carrier or at essential service providers such as airports and Air Navigation Service Providers.
    2. The following circumstances shall not be considered as extraordinary:
    i. technical problems 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; and
    ii. unavailability of flight crew or cabin crew (unless caused by labour disputes).
    Deleted
  • 111KAB wrote: »

    iii damage caused by bird strike

    Uh Oh! Perhaps I should give up my claim now.
    The above is just my opinon - which counts for nowt! You must make up your own mind.
  • razorsedge wrote: »
    Uh Oh! Perhaps I should give up my claim now.

    Confusing isn't it? To my mind, bird strikes are inherent in the normal activity of the air carrier even though they are beyond their control.
  • P_Doff wrote: »
    Confusing isn't it? To my mind, bird strikes are inherent in the normal activity of the air carrier even though they are beyond their control.

    My thoughts exactly and it will be my main angle of attack when I (eventually) get to court.
    The above is just my opinon - which counts for nowt! You must make up your own mind.
  • VaubanVauban Forumite
    4.7K Posts
    Eighth Anniversary Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭
    razorsedge wrote: »
    My thoughts exactly and it will be my main angle of attack when I (eventually) get to court.

    I think logically this is right, but I can also see why a judge might not agree (as it is an external act, however relatively common). So if possible I would belt 'n' brace the claim by arguing what "reasonable measures" the airline took once the strike happened. If a District Judge is looking to make a Solomonian fudge, he could argue that the bird strike was extraordinary, but the response was inadequate.
  • len49len49 Forumite
    43 Posts
    Hi Vauban

    I've just read over the link you've attached.
    Have you picked up on page 19 article 6 - Long Delay

    4. An operating air carrier shall not be obliged to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7, if it can prove that the delay or change of schedule is caused by extraordinary circumstances and that the delay or change of schedule
    could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such extraordinary circumstances can only be invoked insofar they affect the flight concerned or the previous flight operated by the same aircraft.

    This would seem to contradict the current "flight concerned" argument but at least nail down the knock on effects of e.c.'s to those affecting the preceding flight.

    Would appreciate your opinion.

    Regards

    len49




    Vauban wrote: »
    Hold your horses, people.Is this article correct?

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

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



    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.
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides

PCR tests to end for fully vaccinated

Travellers returning to England in Oct

MSE News

Free Homebuilding & Renovating Show tix

London, Harrogate & Shepton Mallet

MSE Deals