What are our rights regarding unscheduled overnight stop Cancun to Gatwick

interstellaflyer

TELLIT01 said:

Voyager2002 said:

The question of compensation is perhaps more promising. If the two trouble-makers were indeed obviously drunk at the beginning of the journey they should not have been allowed to board, and so one could argue that the entire misadventure was therefore TUI's fault. 

As the OP was up in the posh seats they don't have any direct knowledge that the passengers were drunk when they got on the plane, only hearsay.

Hardly posh but I wanted to make it clear we weren't in the same cabin.  As for the rest, I suppose it could be hearsay but the same story was coming from multiple passengers and we have a Wahts App group, what is clear is the media reports are not particulrly accurate, the plane did not divert due to passenger/passengers smoking or fighting, the plane diverted because a male physically assaulted a female, leaving her with visable injuries.

eskbanker

interstellaflyer said:

TELLIT01 said:

Voyager2002 said:

The question of compensation is perhaps more promising. If the two trouble-makers were indeed obviously drunk at the beginning of the journey they should not have been allowed to board, and so one could argue that the entire misadventure was therefore TUI's fault. 

As the OP was up in the posh seats they don't have any direct knowledge that the passengers were drunk when they got on the plane, only hearsay.

Hardly posh but I wanted to make it clear we weren't in the same cabin.  As for the rest, I suppose it could be hearsay but the same story was coming from multiple passengers and we have a Wahts App group, what is clear is the media reports are not particulrly accurate, the plane did not divert due to passenger/passengers smoking or fighting, the plane diverted because a male physically assaulted a female, leaving her with visable injuries.

But inaccuracies in those media reports aren't relevant to the situation in terms of eligibility to claim anything from the airline, in that it's presumably undisputed that the diversion was caused by one or more disruptive passengers, so those specific details of the incident(s) aren't really important to the matter at hand.

The case for UK261 compensation rests on whether it can be demonstrated that the airline failed to comply with its published policy on knowingly allowing passengers to board when intoxicated - clearly an airline has plenty to lose by doing so, so it'll take rather more than some chatter between passengers (who'd clearly have a vested interest in colluding) to prove that the airline knew (or reasonably should have known) that the relevant passengers were incapacitated at the time of boarding....

Grumpy_chap

interstellaflyer said:

 the plane did not divert due to passenger/passengers smoking or fighting, the plane diverted because a male physically assaulted a female, leaving her with visable injuries.

The difference between "passengers fighting" and "male physically assaulted a female, leaving her with visible injuries" could be a very fine line.

DullGreyGuy

interstellaflyer said:

TELLIT01 said:

Voyager2002 said:

The question of compensation is perhaps more promising. If the two trouble-makers were indeed obviously drunk at the beginning of the journey they should not have been allowed to board, and so one could argue that the entire misadventure was therefore TUI's fault. 

As the OP was up in the posh seats they don't have any direct knowledge that the passengers were drunk when they got on the plane, only hearsay.

Hardly posh but I wanted to make it clear we weren't in the same cabin.  As for the rest, I suppose it could be hearsay but the same story was coming from multiple passengers and we have a Wahts App group, what is clear is the media reports are not particulrly accurate, the plane did not divert due to passenger/passengers smoking or fighting, the plane diverted because a male physically assaulted a female, leaving her with visable injuries.

and how are you differentiating that from fighting? Fighting isnt only physical and what may start as verbal may end as physical. 

The problem with alcohol is the onset time. In principle someone could do 10 shots back to back and 10 minutes later appear fairly sober but an hour later be drunk. Someone else could have 3 pints over 2 hours and likely appear at the same level of inebriation but an hour later will be less intoxicated. 

la531983

You have absolutely no way of proving they shouldnt have accepted the passengers, I really would give this one up.