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

Vauban

NoviceAngel wrote: »

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.

It is fairly clear cut in law, but it's not always obvious to the passenger. This is because the obligation for compensation sits with the airline whom intends to operate the flight. The Regulation is pretty clear on this:

Preamble 7 says:

(7) In order to ensure the effective application of this Regulation, the obligations that it creates should rest with the operating air carrier who performs or intends to perform a flight, whether with owned aircraft, under dry or wet lease, or on any other basis.

So in the case of a code-share flight (say booked BA but flown by Iberia) it is Iberia who carry the liability, because they always intended to operate the flight. But where, for example, Monarch call in Small Planet Airlines or whatever they call themselves to provide a "wet lease" service (ie they contract the plane and the crew to perform the flight on their behalf) they Monarch still maintain the liability.

So if Europe Airpost were providing Thomson Airlines with a wet leased aircraft, Thomson would still have liability. I wonder, though an not sure, whether the Flight Number is a telling sign here? If it is still a Thomson number, it's likely to be their responsibility (unless it is a code share).

Anyway, best advice is still to write to them both and see what happens.

EDIT: Oddly Flightstats shows no flights that day between Faro and Aberdeen ...

NoviceAngel

Vauban wrote: »

It is fairly clear cut in law, but it's not always obvious to the passenger. This is because the obligation for compensation sits with the airline whom intends to operate the flight. The Regulation is pretty clear on this:

Preamble 7 says:



So in the case of a code-share flight (say booked BA but flown by Iberia) it is Iberia who carry the liability, because they always intended to operate the flight. But where, for example, Monarch call in Small Planet Airlines or whatever they call themselves to provide a "wet lease" service (ie they contract the plane and the crew to perform the flight on their behalf) they Monarch still maintain the liability.

So if Europe Airpost were providing Thomson Airlines with a wet leased aircraft, Thomson would still have liability. I wonder, though an not sure, whether the Flight Number is a telling sign here? If it is still a Thomson number, it's likely to be their responsibility (unless it is a code share).......

Fascinating, thanks for finer points on that PTLV.

Tyzap

There seems to be something odd with the flight number. If you put it into Botts calculator it come back with the wrong details.

I'm told that if you put the details into the above calculator it will return the flight number of the airline you should claim from, but not in this case.

I think you are right tho, the flight number seems to indicate who is liable.

NoviceAngel

If you google the flight number it does indicate that it is a Thomson booked flight between Faro and Aberdeen. Perhaps the date was wrong?

meldrewreborn

I'm helping a friend with a claim against Wizz Air for a flight from Kosice in Slovakia to Luton on 15 August 2015.
Wizz air do not dispute that the flight arrived more than 3 hours late, which should trigger compensation of euro 400 each, but although they claim the flight was delayed "because of an extraordinary circumstance" they decline to state what it was for reasons of confidentiality, and say that they can onlt release that information if legal action is taken against them.

However in the CAA compliance report issued earlier this year Wizz Air are quoted as saying "If Wizz Air decides to refuse a compensation request, the reason of such decision is that it is

of the opinion that the flight disruption was caused by extraordinary circumstances. In such
cases, each passenger is given full information of the circumstance behind flight disruption and

Wizz Air reasoning for declining compensation request"


I get the feeling this is going around in circles. It seems one has to sue through Money Claim Online to even find out the Company's alleged reason for the delay.


Where's that Lewis fellow - we need someone with a bit of clout to tackle these abuses by airlines.

DrA_Harrogate

Still, unfortunately, pretty typical airline behaviour. So they, or you, just need to check Vauban's guide to make sure they have a case, and then either issue proceedings via MCOL or use a nwnf lawyer. The good news is that airlines are reportedly running up the white flag a bit quicker these days.

Tyzap

meldrewreborn wrote: »

I'm helping a friend with a claim against Wizz Air for a flight from Kosice in Slovakia to Luton on 15 August 2015.
Wizz air do not dispute that the flight arrived more than 3 hours late, which should trigger compensation of euro 400 each, but although they claim the flight was delayed "because of an extraordinary circumstance" they decline to state what it was for reasons of confidentiality, and say that they can onlt release that information if legal action is taken against them.

However in the CAA compliance report issued earlier this year Wizz Air are quoted as saying "If Wizz Air decides to refuse a compensation request, the reason of such decision is that it is

of the opinion that the flight disruption was caused by extraordinary circumstances. In such
cases, each passenger is given full information of the circumstance behind flight disruption and

Wizz Air reasoning for declining compensation request"


I get the feeling this is going around in circles. It seems one has to sue through Money Claim Online to even find out the Company's alleged reason for the delay.


Where's that Lewis fellow - we need someone with a bit of clout to tackle these abuses by airlines.

Whilst Wizz Air are on the CAA's watch list they don't seem to have started any enforcement against them yet.

I'm not sure what they are waiting for because they seem to be treating the paying passenger with disdain and ignoring their rights under 261.

I would imagine that its just a matter of time.

Hemyock25

Hello,

Never used a forum like this before, so bear with me.

To cut a long story short, after experiencing a long flight delay with Norwegian Airline last April and following the land mark decision from the European Court of Justice (C-257/14 - Van der Lans), the airline informed us that they would honour our compensation claim. We have a formal letter dated 06/10/2015, in which they ask for necessary IBAN / SWIFT / BIC detail for our bank, so that the transfer of money could take place.

Trouble is that was over 3 months ago now and, despite several reminders and re-presentation of our IBAN / SWIFT / BIC bank details, nothing has happened.

I'm considering raising European Small Claims Court proceedings, but wanted to gauge opinion on this site first.

Does anyone have any advice, or have similar experience?

Martin L (if you're checking this form), what would you advise?

Thanks in advance.

JPears

Send an NBA with 2 weeks notice. If no payment then you will have to start legal action. If Norwegian have offices iin UK then MCOL or N1 papaer form. If not then I'm not sure if Noway counts for EU smll claims as its on of those funny EU members?

bevlang56

That happened to us last Dec going to Cuba,had to board different aircraft and wait for new crew to arrive, 4hrs Delay, but TC deny it