MSE News: Flight delay compensation changes move closer

David_e

len49 wrote: »

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.

As far as I am aware, the restriction to the "flight concerned" in the current Reg only applies to weather related problems. Air Traffic Control excuses are subject to the "particular aircraft on a particular day" limitation. There are certainly many examples currently of issues on previous flights being used as an excuse for delays on subsequent ones.

If the new rules clearly limit the extent to which previous flights of the same aircraft can be used as an excuse then that's certainly helpful to some - subject to the EC test remaining broadly the same.

Vauban

David_e wrote: »

As far as I am aware, the restriction to the "flight concerned" in the current Reg only applies to weather related problems. Air Traffic Control excuses are subject to the "particular aircraft on a particular day" limitation. There are certainly many examples currently of issues on previous flights being used as an excuse for delays on subsequent ones.

If the new rules clearly limit the extent to which previous flights of the same aircraft can be used as an excuse then that's certainly helpful to some - subject to the EC test remaining broadly the same.

Yep. That's exactly my understanding too. There is nothing explicit in either the Regulation or subsequent case law - as far as I am aware - that rules out knock ons (please let's not do the Finnair debate again!), but of course the "reasonable measures" test makes them hard to defend, IMHO.

len49

Hi David

Thanks for your response. I agree that in some cases this could help stop airlines using "e c"s as a get out for delays further along the chain.

My own claim is currently Sisted (deferred, due to Huzar) in the Scottish Sheriff Court system. An initial 5.5 hours delay in Palma was blamed on adverse weather conditions in another part of Europe the previous day. The plane was scheduled to make another four journeys before serving my flight. A fresh "rescue" plane was flown into Palma and attempted to take off 5.5 hours late but failed on start up due to a "ruptured starter motor duct", the repair of which, resulted in finally arriving in Glasgow 16.5 hours late. When the second delay event occurred pleas for overnight accommodation fell on deaf ears.

I've already had a day in court in September when we ran out of time. On the re-convened day in early December TC requested and were granted a Sist awaiting the outcome of Huzar,

Regards

len49

Vauban

len49 wrote: »

Hi David

Thanks for your response. I agree that in some cases this could help stop airlines using "e c"s as a get out for delays further along the chain.

My own claim is currently Sisted (deferred, due to Huzar) in the Scottish Sheriff Court system. An initial 5.5 hours delay in Palma was blamed on adverse weather conditions in another part of Europe the previous day. The plane was scheduled to make another four journeys before serving my flight. A fresh "rescue" plane was flown into Palma and attempted to take off 5.5 hours late but failed on start up due to a "ruptured starter motor duct", the repair of which, resulted in finally arriving in Glasgow 16.5 hours late. When the second delay event occurred pleas for overnight accommodation fell on deaf ears.

I've already had a day in court in September when we ran out of time. On the re-convened day in early December TC requested and were granted a Sist awaiting the outcome of Huzar,

Regards

len49

Len,

I'm not sure why your case was stayed, as you are not relying on technical faults to demonstrate delay. As David notes, weather can only be an EC if it affects "the flight concerned". As your flight was delayed in excess of three hours by weather elsewhere, it doesn't matter (in my view) what happened subsequently with the relief flight failing: you were already due compensation by that point.

Vauban

Mark2spark

Re: the bird strike proposed amendment.

I'm taking it to mean a bird strike that actually happens 'on your flight', ie whilst the plane is in the air, or commencing take off.
*That* would be beyond the control of the airline.
But damage caused to a previous flight by a bird would be covered by Huzar.

All IMHO.

razorsedge

Mark2spark wrote: »

Re: the bird strike proposed amendment.

I'm taking it to mean a bird strike that actually happens 'on your flight', ie whilst the plane is in the air, or commencing take off.
*That* would be beyond the control of the airline.
But damage caused to a previous flight by a bird would be covered by Huzar.

All IMHO.

I agree that damage on a previous flight is definately not an EC. In a way so do the NEB's on their wishlist:

17 Bird-strikes. Bird-strikes to the aircraft during a flight which might cause damage which requires immediate compulsory checks and possible repair. (My emphasis).

Bird-strikes are not specifically covered by the regs at the moment. The new regs may change that definatively but for now I still believe that bird-strikes are inherent in the operation of an air carrier. It's like pedestrians crossing the road right in front of buses without looking first - an unadvoidable collision for the bus driver but still an everyday possibility.