Compensation for Emirates Delays after Flooding in Dubai

Pollycat

icuras said:

Hi, the reason for posting this now is that I have had success with my claim through the Small Claims Track. Obviously I have to be careful about what I reveal in public. 

If you research the above references, you should be able to find out what the Airline needs to offer you if your flight is delayed. There are 3 options. CAP 2155 details the process the airlines should follow. This information simplifies EU261. Were you contacted by the airline and offered any advice or alternative options? 

The Montreal Convention is the highest legal authority for airline travel, and therefore sets the standard. Article 19 provides a way to seek compensation, but can bee a little difficult to understand, so perhaps using google to help you understand it, could be a way forward. 

The comments from those that replied to my post perhaps should have read the publications I mentioned before casting doubt on my post. 

It wasn't a case of casting doubt on the content of your post.
It was pointing out that you had resurrected an old post (and another one) so the information you provided wasn't of use to the originator of both threads.

You may wish to respond to eskbanker's post...

eskbanker

icuras said:

Hi, the reason for posting this now is that I have had success with my claim through the Small Claims Track. Obviously I have to be careful about what I reveal in public.
Why is it obvious - was your case determined in court or was it settled prior to that with some sort of NDA before reaching that stage?  Either way round, that doesn't preclude sharing meaningful detail about lines of argument in more constructive terms than 'Google it'.

If you research the above references, you should be able to find out what the Airline needs to offer you if your flight is delayed.
Airlines' obligations are spelt out in the regulations themselves, although, as below, the CAA offers some guidance beyond that.

There are 3 options.
What are the three options you're referring to (only two follow here)?

CAP 2155 details the process the airlines should follow. This information simplifies EU261.
CAP 2155 is simply the CAA's non-binding opinion about interpretation of the article 8 rerouting obligations of the EC/UK261 legislation, but doesn't supersede either:

The CAA’s view on the acceptable means of compliance is not intended to limit or modify the rights of individual passengers under UK (EU) Reg No 261/2004. Ultimately, it is the role of the courts to interpret and apply the provisions of UK (EU) Reg No 261/2004. The CAA’s view on the acceptable means of compliance should not be taken as a substitute for independent legal advice as to the view that a court would be likely to take

What specifically are you suggesting it brings to this discussion?

Were you contacted by the airline and offered any advice or alternative options? 

The Montreal Convention is the highest legal authority for airline travel, and therefore sets the standard.
Not really true, but it is pretty much universally adopted - it's widely accepted that the EC/UK261 regulations offer more generous and specific redress though.

Article 19 provides a way to seek compensation, but can bee a little difficult to understand, so perhaps using google to help you understand it, could be a way forward. 
As above, in what specific way(s) do you believe it supports OP's compensation (not expenses) claim, rather than the cryptic secret squirrel stuff?

The comments from those that replied to my post perhaps should have read the publications I mentioned before casting doubt on my post. 

And perhaps you should have answered the question about exactly how you believe they support a claim such as OP's, but it's not too late to rectify that now....

For those unfamiliar with the Montreal Convention, the relevant article is:

The carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers, baggage or cargo. Nevertheless, the carrier shall not be liable for damage occasioned by delay if it proves that it and its servants and agents took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for it or them to take such measures.

so, as above, there is considerable scope for airlines to claim exemption from paying expenses (never mind compensation) under reasonable measures arguments.  However, if you contend that there are viable and successful relevant lines of argument against that, then please share them - even though it's obviously far too late for the thread starter, it could be useful for others, but only if the vagueness and obfuscation are remedied....