MSE News: Victory for passengers on flight delay claims in European court ruling

Dr_Watson

Smudge's_Lot wrote: »

I am afraid that as I work for an airline,this will only be self defeating.

Does anybody out there think that paying say £100 for a flight should then be entitled to £300 compensation when a crucial part on the plane fails for whatever reason?

Do you get compensation from National Express coaches when a coach gets a tyre puncture and you are delayed?

Do you get compensation that is 3 times your ticket cost for when your train is delayed by strong winds bringing down power cables?

Parts can and do fail and yet with the strongest safety ethic in almost any industry,do you think some airlines will now just go ahead and fly rather than delay the flight so they are not liable for compensation......

Is your £300 worth that risk that has been imposed by the ECJ.??

The compensation culture will only mean that businesses will increase costs,and guess who ends paying that-look at car insurance-part of everyone's insurance pays for the sore neck culture out there,so with airlines,fares WILL go up and some airlines WILL cut corners

Is that what we want?

Smudge's Lot,
We had this debate on here many months ago with a 'Spanner Monkey' (if i remember correctly).
I've got to say his/her arguments were much better presented and argued/reasoned.
But from the regulars on here including myself- it's not self defeating, it's just application of the law and the regulation.
For me the debate is over.

111KAB

No 'my' 50p does not guarantee a part will not fail but what it should guarantee is that I will be compensated for the inconvenience of being delayed beyond 3 hours.
As you work in the airline industry I would hope you can impress upon your colleagues not to 'cut corners' - perhaps you should name those airlines which will cut corners so we can all avoid same.

christaitfife

This whole '50p extra per ticket' thing is very wrong. Airlines can't afford to raise ticket prices on competitive routes, so where the increases come are on routes with little competition or on high yield tickets. It is likely that a few higher ticket prices on selected routes will pay for all of this.

I would also like to see what would happen if you could opt for 'compensation protection', say £1 extra per ticket to be able to claim... how many people would select that extra?? The thing is, people see this as free money - it isn't, it is just that we are all paying for it.

I agree that if the airline screws up you should get something - but we must all see the current structure is nuts. Hundreds.of pounds for a.few hours, and they need to feed and water you. Yes, airlines should pay but I just think the current structure is far too hard lined.

christaitfife

Oh... I have friend who was a pilot and now does consultancy work. He reckons that if an aircraft fails it is now cheaper to cancel the flight, repair it over 24hrs and compensate the passengers than brining in a spare crew and flying in a standby aircraft if it will take longer than 3hrs. This is because of crew costs, fuel, landing charges, leaving a crew to return an aircraft etc. Could it be that this ruling will make certain delayed flights even more delayed?

cheekymonkeynotts

Was on a monarch flight from Bham - Barcelona - 2013 August.
Flight was supposed to leave @ 7am but left after 3pm.

We weren't told about it properly and were fobbed off.
Pilot told us they were getting new part to replace dodgy part from Luton & people over the tannoy had said they have gone to crawley to pick up the part.

Then after chasing it up for 2 years i was told there was a problem with the EEC: The reply from airline is below.

Our records show that the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight suffered a fault with the electronic engine computer (EEC) and was subsequently grounded for safety reasons. Consequently the aircraft could not operate until the fault could be traced and rectified. Despite our best efforts we were unable transfer your flight to an aircraft within the Monarch fleet, consequently this led to an unavoidable delay to the departure of your flight.

We can the EEC which failed on this occasion had only accumulated 24 flight hours since installation to the aircraft on the 17th August 2013. We can therefore confirm that such a premature failure can only have been caused by a hidden manufacturing defect of the component otherwise the part would not have failed so early into its life. Accordingly, this was beyond our control and was, in fact, a hidden manufacturing defect.

Will i still get compensation?

howticklediam

cheekymonkeynotts wrote: »

Was on a monarch flight from Bham - Barcelona - 2013 August.
Flight was supposed to leave @ 7am but left after 3pm.

We weren't told about it properly and were fobbed off.
Pilot told us they were getting new part to replace dodgy part from Luton & people over the tannoy had said they have gone to crawley to pick up the part.

Then after chasing it up for 2 years i was told there was a problem with the EEC: The reply from airline is below.

Our records show that the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight suffered a fault with the electronic engine computer (EEC) and was subsequently grounded for safety reasons. Consequently the aircraft could not operate until the fault could be traced and rectified. Despite our best efforts we were unable transfer your flight to an aircraft within the Monarch fleet, consequently this led to an unavoidable delay to the departure of your flight.

We can the EEC which failed on this occasion had only accumulated 24 flight hours since installation to the aircraft on the 17th August 2013. We can therefore confirm that such a premature failure can only have been caused by a hidden manufacturing defect of the component otherwise the part would not have failed so early into its life. Accordingly, this was beyond our control and was, in fact, a hidden manufacturing defect.

Will i still get compensation?

I'd say it's a load of baloney. Look at this post http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=69054023&postcount=2545

I am fighting the same defence.

Then post on the Monarch thread.

glentoran99

christaitfife wrote: »

This whole '50p extra per ticket' thing is very wrong. Airlines can't afford to raise ticket prices on competitive routes, so where the increases come are on routes with little competition or on high yield tickets. It is likely that a few higher ticket prices on selected routes will pay for all of this.

I would also like to see what would happen if you could opt for 'compensation protection', say £1 extra per ticket to be able to claim... how many people would select that extra?? The thing is, people see this as free money - it isn't, it is just that we are all paying for it.

I agree that if the airline screws up you should get something - but we must all see the current structure is nuts. Hundreds.of pounds for a.few hours, and they need to feed and water you. Yes, airlines should pay but I just think the current structure is far too hard lined.

I think Ryanair already do that

Deadbeat

This excuse seems rather dishonest: '...the two defective components hadn't exceeded their average lifetime'

If a component has a known average lifetime then that is an average of many data points not a hard and fast figure. Some components will have a lifetime of less than the average; and some, more.

A component failing before its average lifetime is not an exceptional event.

minnie-moo_2

Hi Any one had problems with Blue Air a Romanian airline from Liverpool to Bucharest???
They dont come up on the claim form.
Also, if a flight takes off on time, then after the seat belt signs go off, been informed they had a technical difficulty and will have to return to Liverpool and will soon been making our descent. We turned around to land back at Liverpool, but ended up circling Liverpool for 2 plus hours, before landing. Then sat on the plane for a further 2 and half hours, before taking off again, this made us arrive at our destination 5 hours late, plus we were not even offered refreshments. I made a complaint to the airline, and they said because we decided to continue our journey we are not allowed compensation. Some people got off the plane as soon as we landed back at liverpool, We however did not know how long we would be left sat on the plane.
Any advice/

thanks
minnie-moo

Vauban

christaitfife wrote: »

Oh... I have friend who was a pilot and now does consultancy work. He reckons that if an aircraft fails it is now cheaper to cancel the flight, repair it over 24hrs and compensate the passengers than brining in a spare crew and flying in a standby aircraft if it will take longer than 3hrs. This is because of crew costs, fuel, landing charges, leaving a crew to return an aircraft etc. Could it be that this ruling will make certain delayed flights even more delayed?

Actually, I think this is a really good point.