Are airlines lying to customers?

BlowinMyTop

I have just returned from Kos on the infamous DE1724 - Thomas Cook / Condor flight.

I suspect foul play by Thomas Cook in order to avoid paying compensation claims and this may not be the only time this has happened , but this time they might have been caught with their pants down...

1) we boarded the plane and put on seatbelts

2) we waited, and waited and waited until finally the captain spoke to announce that we had been delayed in taking off due to missing documentation supplied by Manchester Airport which I find impossible to believe

3) after 2 hours we taxied out onto the runway, being a regular flyer and paying attention to procedures during the flight, there was procedures missing such a "cabin crew for departure" and non of the wing flaps were raised and lowered, there was a noise from the read and then the sudden announcement that the aircraft was "not fit to fly".

During the two hour delay, I noticed a number of vehicles at the rear of the aircraft and I suggested to my partner that the delay was not "lack of documents" as the pilot had claimed as at the same time as making these claims, three times he insisted that the place was safe and that the delay had nothing to do with any problem with the aircraft which roused my suspicion as these announcements of the plane is 100% safe to fly came out of the blue.

While disembarking, I suggested to two air stewardess that he take off had been 'mocked' in order to make us believe that there was a genuine attempt to take off and try to pacify us into believing that the fault "had just happened". One stewardess insisted that "that the fault had just happened on the runway" and again I suggested to her that this was rubbish and rather than blaming Manchester Airport, they need to be honest in that for two hours they were actually trying to fix the aircraft which was denied.

At first assuming that this was a 'fake take off' in order to justify why we'd been waiting for two hours, I now actually feel that there are more sinister reasons for taking a known broken aircraft out onto the runway, perform a couple of pre-flight checks, rev the engines and abort claiming the aircraft "was not safe and had just that minute broken down!".

I truly believe we were being duped into believing the aircraft had just broken when in fact it had been known for a number of hours and had been trying to fix it which proved not possible, so to the only option was to lead us into believing the aircraft at the time of leaving the stand was fully airworthy.

Airlines have a get out clause within the EU261 compensation law in that if an aircraft develops an unforeseen fault during take off after leaving the stand, it can be then classed as ''extraordinary circumstances' meaning they don't have to pay compensation..

• Our pilot first blamed delays on Manchester Airport Ground Crew missing documentation
  
• After being told we had been given clearance to fly, taxied out and then 'suddenly' a fault develops

Later on, our flight made UK national news in that it has sat on Manchester Airports stand for four hours where a spokesperson from Thomas Cook admitted that "engineers had been doing their utmost to fix a technical problem on flight DE1724, from German airline Condor, part of the Thomas Cook group, but were unable to resolve the issue leading to the cancellation".

For three hours the pilots and crew denied profusely that there was any fault on the aircraft nor that anyone was working on it and that it was 100% safe to fly then from an external source find out that that they had tried to fix the plane while we were sat on it, before they gave up..

Did they fake the take off for the following reasons?

• to pacify into leading us to believe were were ready to leave but a turn of bad luck prevented us flying?
• to be able to claim that this was an 'extraordinary circumstance' to avoid paying compensation for a cancelled flight?

If this is the case than Thomas Cook are committing fraud under EU law and denying people of rightful justice. A flight with 250 on board where they can "Cook up" (excuse the pun) a story that the plane had just broken has a potential saving to them of over £250,000 per flight in compensation.

Was Thomas Cook trying to cover up known and non 'extraordinary circumstance' faults as break downs by running aircraft onto the runways and bringing them straight back claiming they are not safe to fly and dodge paying compensation to passengers?

I truly believe this is what was going on here and they have been caught out by the Manchester Evening news speaking to someone who confirmed that they had been trying to fix the aircraft for two hours.

THE LAST PERSON I WOULD WANT TO LIE TO ME ON AN AIRCRAFT IS THE PILOT??

The day after, our flight took off and was assured the "replacement aircraft was 100% safe and there are no issues with it" only to later find the aircraft we flew to Kos on did not fly out again due to a 'technical fault'. So after so many claims our replacement aircraft was safe, it was grounded after we arrived to be repaired!!!

So if the aircraft you were on taxied out and the flight is cancelled, did the fault really just occur on the runway or were they already aware of the fault and ran you out to the runway in order to rebuff later claims for a cancelled flight?

Makes you think, and I think it's happening more than we know..

Should I contact the police or Serious Fraud Office?

JPears

Airlines don't tell the truth. Leave it at that. I think you are over thinking the issue.
Faults are inherent in the everyday running and operation of an airline and qualify for compensation under regulation 261/2004.
Pushback, as far as I am aware, does not exempt the airline from compensation payments.
Botts online calculator says you are owed 400Euros due to delay.
Get a claim in or hand it to Botts.
And any further post on the dedicated TC thread please. Personal threads make if difficult and untidy.

Vauban

Airlines do mislead claimants - there's a large body of evidence to suggest that.

However your conspiracy theory lacks merit: no pilot would attempt an aborted take off knowing the plane wasn't fit to fly. And why would s/he? If a technical problem occurs on take off, it is still not an extraordinary circumstance and compensation would still be due.

bagand96

Airlines have a get out clause within the EU261 compensation law in that if an aircraft develops an unforeseen fault during take off after leaving the stand, it can be then classed as an 'extraordinary circumstance' meaning they don't have to compensate you..

No they don't have a get out clause.

Airlines will nearly always try and say a technical fault is "extraordinary circumstances" in their initial response in the hope that you'll accept it and go away. 1000s probably do.

Get your claim in as others have said. Leave out all the nonsense and conspiracy theories.

Tyzap

Here is a short mention of the problem, it suggests that it was a technical fault which they could not fix.

https://www.flight-delayed.co.uk/news/2016/06/05/thomas-cook-passengers-stranded-onboard-aircraft-for-hours-on-end

It appears to me that they 'though' they had fixed the fault, but when they started to taxi out to the runway it returned again.

BlowinMyTop

Vauban: How does it lack merit and very quick to mark me down as a conspiracist?

If they had thought they had fixed, why did they not even attempt to test it prior to taxiing and leaving the gate?

This has nothing to do with conspiracy, it is to do with the fact we were lied too for over three hours many times while onboard and only when the delay became public that the truth started to appear. There is a difference between conspiracy and working out that you have been lied to, don't you agree?

The plane was taken to the runway and suddenly suffers a broken stabiliser and immediately brought back to stand with claims for many hours that the delay was that documentation was missing?

While taxiing the German pilot in poor English again made many claims that the delay was documentation and that the there was nothing wrong with the plane, nor had it been repaired on the runway while we were on it. Why make these comments when at the time no one had even had cause or reason to question if there was a fault whether fixed or not?

So with 250+ agitated passengers, why not take it out to the end of runway claiming "good news, we have the documents and good to go" and then minutes later, another announcement at the end of taxiing to the runway "bad news, the aircraft is faulty".

Why wouldn't pilot not make a taxi run onto the airfield?
- it needed to be taken off from the stand to free it up and this was the perfect opportunity!!

He knew he wasn't taking off and had already lied three times in announcements prior to taxiing, claiming "no one had been working on the aircraft" and "the aircraft was 100% safe to fly", yet Thomas Cook externally admit to news organisations that "engineers had been doing their utmost to fix a technical problem on flight DE1724, from German airline Condor, part of the Thomas Cook group, but were unable to resolve the issue leading to the cancellation".

So, onboard we are being told there was no fault being fixed, but at the same time Manchester Evening News, Daily Mirror and The Sun are being told there was a fault that they cannot fix!!

If they were unable to fix it, then why did it taxi out in the first place?

The day after, the same cabin crew and pilot where still insisting the previous days delay was due to Manchester Airports failures even though the press and Thomas Cook had admitted a technical fault and working on it.
The issue was a rear stabiliser, which if tested while parked, would have been obvious to those onboard due to the noise so instead it was done while being taxied, it is also strange that little that you would normally see and hear see on a flight being prepared for take off was happening, which did happen the day after.

The German air stewardesses claiming as we left, "no Sir, the fault happened as we were about to take off, you saw it for yourself"

Why then, strongly deny anyone had even been working on it throughout the whole time we were onboard?

I have spoken to someone at Manchester Airport who has suggested I obtain a formal written response with evidence such as Ground Operations communications as to who and what vehicles were working around the aircraft with the time frame as in his words "a scheduled flight that has been operating for so long, will not have missing documentation!"

I have also written to the CAA to see ask them to look into the events and why what we were told on board do not match what was happening outside.

£250,000 in claims for a any company already in the red by £100m, is a big saving and incentive to deceive..

So it is not possible that an airline might encourage pilots to make technical faults 'appear later' than they actually did in order to help prevent claims for delays due to "exceptional circumstances"?

Please don't tell me all pilots are honorable members of the public, I am sure that many are willing to 'tow the company line'.

Time will tell once I have received the replies to the letters I have sent..

JPears

Admin, can you lock this thread please?

howticklediam

I think this is interesting.

It's obvious that nowadays the crew might be instructed not to admit to a technical fault during a delay so the airlines can say it was an EC or ATC event when you apply for compensation. In my case, I knew it was a tech fault because the pilot said what had caused the delay, but if he had not, I might not have applied for compensation or I might have accepted the first thing Jet2 told me when I did.

It's an important point that the airlines should be honest to their passengers, they owe them a duty of care, and it's about honouring and enforcing 261.

I hope the CAA do investigate. And if they find that airlines are not being truthful in the case of a delay I hope they take steps to ensure that airlines give the real reason straight away to avoid the expense and hassle of trying to find out via a court case. It should really be written into the regulation in the section about passengers being fully informed of their rights. You could argue that failure to give the whole truth about the reason for a delay is derogation from the regulation, because if you don't know the reason, you don't know if you have a claim.

Good luck with it and please keep us posted.

jpsartre

BlowinMyTop wrote: »

If they had thought they had fixed, why did they not even attempt to test it prior to taxiing and leaving the gate?

How do you know they didn't? Your theory makes no sense since it relies on the incorrect premise that faults delevoped after pushback are automatically classified as extraordinary.

Many people wouldn't like to be told that the plane they are about to take off on is having a technical issue, that's probably why they used the paperwork excuse during the delay.

BlowinMyTop

Crikey - I thought this place was supposed to be friendly and on the side of the consumer!!

I came here to ask the general question: "Does anyone else feel that they have experienced a 'staged' take off" in order that the airline can cover up to a 3 hour delay and then try to claim that the 'technical fault' with the aircraft had "just occurred" in order to put people off and lead people into not claiming. I was told as I left "you have no claim as it was a safety cancellation and had just happened" which was complete rubbish and lies.

The pilot, during the 3 hours delay had made many claims that the sole reason was that they were awaiting documentation to fly from Manchester Airport and the delays was down to them, not any issue with the aircraft.

Yet, at the same time we are being told there is no safety issue with the aircraft and that no repairs had been carried out, Manchester Evening News are being told by Thomas Cook's Press Office "Thomas Cook say engineers had been doing their utmost to fix a technical problem on flight DE1724, from German airline Condor, part of the Thomas Cook group, but were unable to resolve the issue leading to the cancellation."

If as Thomas Cook claim, engineers had been working on the so called 'technical fault', then when? Considering as they claim, this had happened while taxiing (as seemingly there was no fault when we pushed back), then the only opportunity to repair was the time between the aborted take off and us getting off back at the gate.

So who do you believe, the pilot who is claiming that the aircraft for 3 hours is not being repaired or Thomas Cook's Press Office who clearly claim and that there was a fault that they tried to fix and they couldn't?

It is also difficult to believe the pilot when the aircraft was surrounded by ground crew vehicles and later during taxiing, it was escorted by ground crew cars both when heading out and back in.

Condor are already well known for being obstructive and completely ignorant when it comes to making claims and as a frequent flyer and someone who has flown aircraft myself, their was nothing normal about the preparation for take off on this flight. It was a sham from the start and it appears that they already knew it wasn't going to fly, but had to find a way to let 250 passengers down gently, which to me would be to make a false attempt to depart.

Regarding not knowing that the aircraft you are sat on is is having a 'technical issue' repaired.
I think I and many others would like the truth in order to make an informed decision as to whether remain on it rather than be lied to only to then find my family in the middle of a mid air emergency or worse, the plane came down during the flight.

The repair that they had attempted on a rear stabiliser I would imagine is beyond what can be done on the tarmac and should have been immediately removed from service and not let us board in the first place and use the 3 hours they had to make plans to quickly get us out the airport.

Probably many people would prefer not to know, but do they have the right to lie to us?

We have the right (whether or not we like it) to be told the whole truth from start to finish.

It has been known in the past that when passengers find that the aircraft they are on is unsafe and have demanded to leave so maybe it is easier to tell lies and keep passengers in the dark and they will never actually know to prevent people wanting to get off.

I seem to remember a film in the 70's claiming it was "safe to go back into the water!"...

- Condor told myself and others that failing to remain with the group and not going on a 100 mile round trip to a hotel with them instead of home for the night, would effectively mean forfeiting any claim for compensation.

- Condor claimed that no compensation can be claimed as they had "put people up for the night" and given food and drinks.

I suppose having in-flight video with a documentary of Pandas clearly and graphically having sexual intercourse, then images of keepers with their hands within the Panda's private parts followed by another later about extracting Caviar eggs from fish (which involves pressing the stomachs of very large fish followed by inserting hands inside their sexual orifices), again with graphic and disturbing images for children to watch was acceptable on the replacement flight?

After requesting that the video was switched off, I was told "are you for real, this is the 21st century and are going on holiday, so don't cause trouble today" is acceptable?

My five year old and other children were subject to this material and it was too late to prevent her watching the Pandas, luckily she didn't see much of the fish egg extraction also it was on every screen throughout the aircraft.

It may well be the 21st Century and although I am broad minded myself, would not expect a 5 year old to be exposed to such disgusting images, would you?

Although I know I have a valid claim and have already started the process, what have Condor got to loose in 'faking' when a technical fault occurred and then start to tell people that they have no claim. Is this why some claims solicitors state they Condor either completely ignore claims or refuse to pay stating "extraordinary circumstances" which puts so many off that only 2 to 5% of people on their flights that are delayed actually claim and get paid out?

Many people believe what they are told and I guess wont even bother looking into it based on the lies they have already been told..

coffeehound

BlowinMyTop wrote: »

So, onboard we are being told there was no fault being fixed, but at the same time Manchester Evening News, Daily Mirror and The Sun are being told there was a fault that they cannot fix!!

If they were unable to fix it, then why did it taxi out in the first place?

[/B]The day after, the same cabin crew and pilot wo Manchester Airports failures even though the press and Thomas Cook had admitted a technical fault and working on it.
The issue was a rear stabiliser, which if tested while parked, would have been obvious to those onboard due to the noise so instead it was done while being taxied,

Not commenting on your key point, but it is probably the case that flight controls are not allowed to be moved while on-stand with all the various activities that go on around the aircraft. This might explain why they were unable to confirm the problem was fixed until after push-back.