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

howticklediam

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?

Neither is desirable, and the requirement to pay compensation will hopefully encourage the airline to avoid either situation by having reliable planes or contingency. That's the point of the regulation.

If you're stuck at an airport abroad, to cancel for 24 hours, the airline would have to accommodate a plane load of people over night, that has to cost more than a 3+ hour delay. And then they still need to get them back don't they?

If you're delayed at, or close to, the base airport, then there should be the facilities to fix the problem fairly quickly or have a stand-by plane.

So on the face of it, I cant see how that assertion can be made. But I'm no expert.

SingingDwarf

I have previously contacted the CAA regarding a Malaysian Airlines flight that was delayed by 12 hours. They would not uphold my complaint and when I asked them to outline the reasoning behind their assertion that the incident was beyond the control of the airline, I received the following response:

There are constraints on the CAA that prevent it from releasing certain information to passengers. Essentially any information obtained by the CAA under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act is specified information for the purposes of Part 9 of the Enterprise Act 2002. This means it cannot be disclosed except in very limited circumstances. Disclosure in breach of Part 9 is a criminal offence on the part of the individual who makes the disclosure. We therefore often have very little room for manoeuvre in relation to information we gather about businesses when assessing compliance with Regulation EC261/2004.

To provide you with the CAA’s rationale in the assessment of your claim, would I’m afraid, lead us into territory that would be in breach of the Enterprise Act.

So much for protecting the rights of the consumer!

christaitfife

@singingdwarf I think you have actually hit my nail on the head, but perhaps inadvertently. Almost every Eu aircraft is reliable - they have to be highly maintained by law. Failures happen, but these can not be predicted or much done to prevent them - just look at the BA fire in Vegas! I don't see the justification on punishing an airline further (it will already cost them) for something it can't predict or do little to prevent. I do agree, however, problems originating from incompetence by the airline or airport should be compensated.

In terms of the costs of cancelling a flight - I was with you, but as airlines can pay very little to room passengers in hotels and the cost of a quick aircraft repair is exponentially more expensive than a slower one (the aircraft will have to be repaired anyway) and/ or the cost of fuel - I can see how it could be better for an airline just to cancel. Using the standby aircraft to stop knock-on delays will help reduce other claims too

socrates1882

I think a few people will know who I am, but I always like to make it clear.


I'm Kevin who works for Bott & Co.


I don't post on here very much, and I read it an awful lot less than I used to because it's seemed less and less appropriate as we have grown in size. I do maintain this is a fabulous resource for passengers and litigants in person and think some of the comment, knowledge and information on here is wonderful.


I understand people's comments about it being unpredictable and outside of the airlines control. With respect, the judgment yesterday confirmed that whilst these events are unpredictable it is the opinion of the court they are still within the airlines control.


One of the first things I ever heard about this regulation which I think nicely summarises everything is that the law says that these events may not be the airlines fault, but they are their responsibility.


That perfectly encapsulates the spirit and intention of this regulation and should be borne in mind at all times.

looploop2

Hi I wondered if anyone could give me advice I booked flights to Faro through Thomson airways and had a delay of almost 6 hours with a young child, when I used Resolver to complain I had a response to say the flight was provided by Europe Airpost and I should take my claim to them. They are not on Resolver I have tried to add them but have had no response. I found a contact form on the Europe Airpost website which I completed but again have had no response. They have a disclaimer beside the form stating compensation can only be considered if flights are booked directly through their website other wise it is the resbonsibility of the travel agent/company to pursue. I am now confused who the claim should be with? Any ideas?

DrA_Harrogate

I've not come across this one before - maybe someone else has - but what I *think* is that your contract is with Thomsons and it is up to them to fulfil it or, in this case, not. You may well be tempted to run your claim through a nwnf lawyer who will certainly know where to allocate the responsibility..

111KAB

looploop2 - passing the buck! Best way to resolve is to send same letter to both firms copying the other one in each time. Read Vauban's Guide then same NBA sent to both.....if they then keep passing the buck undertake court claim citing both of them. Eventually one will admit they are responsible!
In my opinion (for what it is worth) Europe Airpost are the responsible party but would be interested to have your flight number as this may reveal more info.

looploop2

Thanks for responding here is the flight details
Thu, 13 Aug 15 19:10 Depart Faro ( FAO )
Flight FPO 812T 22:35 Arrive Aberdeen ( ABZ )

I have sent the letter to both companies but had no response from Europe Airpost, Thomson has told me to take the complaint to Europe Airpost. Do you think I should try again with Thomson?

111KAB

looploop - as indicated I would read Vauban's Guide (now undertaken I presume) then same NBA letter copying in both firms. FPO is definitely the French Airline which should really be your starting point.

NoviceAngel

In my mind it's fairly clear cut, it's the actual flight company, that runs the flight that is delayed, not any third party who took the booking.

We've had this before with Virgin and BA when they flight share, yeah as 111KAB says, I'd pursue Europe Airpost.