Can I claim?

Alasander

My partner and i were booked to fly from Gatwick to Mauritius on the 4th september. The flight was an Emirates flight due to depart at 2145 and arrive at Dubai at 0735 the next morning. We had a connecting flight departing Dubai at 1020 that same morning to arrive at Mauritius at 1655 that day. The flight was delayed leaving Gatwick due to a "runway closure". We were then told the flight had been diverted to Heathrow and we had to wait for the plane to be brought over from Heathrow. We eventually departed at 0200. We arrived in Dubai at 1134 that morning having missed the connecting flight. We were automatically booked on the next flight which left Dubai at 0410 the next morning. We were then shuttled to a hotel where we had to wait until 0130 before being taken back to the airport. We arrived in Mauritius at 1230 that day and were over 18 hours late for our hotel and missed a day of our holiday because of it, we only had 6 days to begin with!.
Do you think we have grounds to claim compensation?

jpsartre

No, a runway closure is outside the control of the airline.

Tyzap

I'm not so sure.

Perhaps enter your flight details into a couple of on-line flight delay calculators, such as Botts, and see what they say.

It's not directly the airlines fault but that doesn't mean that you cannot claim. The airlines pay for landing services etc etc and this was a fault, not an ATC decision in the normal sense.

I'd dig a bit deeper.

Might even be worth asking the CAA in this case!

Good luck.

jpsartre

Tyzap wrote: »

It's not directly the airlines fault but that doesn't mean that you cannot claim.

True but what reasonable measures do you propose Emirates could have taken to avoid a delay caused by a just-discovered hole in the runway?

Tyzap

jpsartre wrote: »

True but what reasonable measures do you propose Emirates could have taken to avoid a delay caused by a just-discovered hole in the runway?

It's not what I propose but what the regulations propose.

There are other similar instances too where the airline is not directly responsible for an incident that causes a delay which could not be avoid by the airline.

Examples are bird strikes, technical faults, flight crew sickness, ground positioned steps damaging the aircraft etc.

It may well be that the airline can reclaim costs from the airport, as that is not precluded by the regulations.

The regulations do not purport to cover examples of every scenario that may crop up, that final decision will rest with either a judge or, increasingly, an ADR supplier.

jpsartre

Tyzap wrote: »

It's not what I propose but what the regulations propose.

And the regulations state that no compensation is due for events for which the airline could not reasonably have prevented. I really struggle to see what Emirates could have done to prevent the delay in this case. If a hole in the runway is not an extraordinary circumstance outside the control of the airline it's hard to think of anything that would be.

Tyzap

jpsartre wrote: »

And the regulations state that no compensation is due for events for which the airline could not reasonably have prevented.

So no compensation is due for the examples I have outlined above? and yet the courts are finding in the claimants favour for exactly this type of claims!

You may not agree with the regulation, which is your right, but many of these points have been legally tested and the outcome of new cases are fairly predictable. Especially as the specialist flight delay courts such as Liverpool seem to be on the same page as each other these days.

jpsartre

Tyzap wrote: »

So no compensation is due for the examples I have outlined above? and yet the courts are finding in the claimants favour for exactly this type of claims!

Technical faults and crew sickness are clearly within control of the airline. AFAIK there has been one non-binding court ruling stating bird strikes are non-extraordinary, based on the fact that the judge confused non-extraordinary with frequent. So unless you want to argue that runway closures are frequent that's an irrelevant ruling. I don't know the ruling about steps causing damage you are referring to so can't comment on that.

I have no problem with the EU regulations at all and would encourage anything who has a valid claim to pursue it. That doesn't mean I think everyone who suffered a delay is entitled to compensation. If a hole in the runway doesn't get an airline off the hook then there's no point in anyone asking whether they have a claim or not, the advice will always be "you might, try it on".

111KAB

jpsartre wrote: »

I don't know the ruling about steps causing damage ............

ECJ case of Siewert and others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH confirms this. A set of boarding stairs collided with an aircraft at Stuttgart Airport damaging it and causing a delay. Nothing to do with the airline, third party at fault, couldn’t be controlled or foreseen, court found for the claimants.

Tyzap

You seem to be asking for a definitive answer to the question of a hole in the runway.

One that no one can give until a precedent is set by a court. If no one ever takes it that far, a binding decision will never be made and it will always remain in the realm of opinion.

We now seem to have gone full circle so let me remind you of my original reply to the op....

Perhaps enter your flight details into a couple of on-line flight delay calculators, such as Botts, and see what they say.

It's not directly the airlines fault but that doesn't mean that you cannot claim. The airlines pay for landing services etc etc and this was a fault, not an ATC decision in the normal sense.

I'd dig a bit deeper.

Might even be worth asking the CAA in this case!

This is where and how clarification of such questions starts. It starts with asking questions, which is exactly what I have suggested.

The cases that you now accept have all been through this process, thats how the system works.

Vauban

In my (not legal expert) view, think a hole in the runway sits at the cusp of whether it's claimable or not.

Remember the legal test is not whether the cause of the delay is in the control of the airline, but rather whether the cause is inherent in the business of operating an airline and which therefore the airline might have to make contingency provision. (This is why random and unexpected technical failures are still non-extraordinary, even if the airline has done everything to maintain the plane correctly.)

My instinct in this case would be to focus on the airline's response to the incident: could it have, with different operational decisions, got a replacement airplane to you, or got you up in the air, substantially more quickly than it did? The bar that the Regulation (and subsequent case law) sets for this is quite high - everything short of "intolerable sacrifices". And if the airline falls short in its response, compensation is payable - including for delays caused by extraordinary circumstances.