Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Flybe ONLY
Comments
-
Yep you have a case as they cancelled the flight. Do you have receipts for the extra accommodation etc. as they could be liable for that as well as the compensation0
-
Yep you have a case as they cancelled the flight. Do you have receipts for the extra accommodation etc. as they could be liable for that as well as the compensation
Unfortunately we only kept the receipts for a couple of months then, as Flybe had flatly denied any responsibility, we destroyed them.
At least I feel happy now I can start to take some action.
Many thanks for your help.0 -
I've had a reply from flybe, basically the same as before - not interested, not our fault.
I note your comments regarding your cancelled flight from Dublin to Norwich on the 14th September 2007 and I apologise for the inconvenience caused. The flight was cancelled due to a hidden manufacturing defect with the Bombardier aircraft scheduled to operate the flight. Under instructions from Bombardier all aircraft were grounded whilst their landing gear were inspected. Under EU regulation 261/2004 such a hidden manufacturing defect is listed as extraordinary circumstances outside of an airline’s control. With regards to your request for compensation I am sorry to advise that we are unable to consider this.
As the flight was cancelled due to extraordinary circumstances, compensation would not be payable in the circumstances. Thank you for taking the time and trouble to write to us allowing me an opportunity of response. Once again our further apologies for the inconvenience caused and we look forward to welcoming you on board our services again in entirely satisfactory circumstances.
So what now, a letter to who??0 -
Hi please bear with me as new to this game but have looked at this thread to try and recover money from Flybe for the debacle at East Mids airport on 23/3/13. Would like help on whether I have a case to pursue
Background - bad weather and airport closed until 11.00 a.m. My flight due out at 15.00 to Chambery in France. Get to airport and nothing on board about my flight. Another Flybe flight due to go to Edinburgh around 13.30. Check in and when go through security only one Flybe plane on tarmac, which turns out to be flight to Edinburgh that leaves relatively within time. Nothing on board about my flight until at 15.00 it says more information at 17.00. At 16.50 I manage to speak to man in yellow jacket who radio's through and finds out we will get more information at 17.00,i.e. as per board. Nothing else said about the flight. However the man told me that they had been expecting a flight in from Amsterdam at 14.30 which had been delayed to 16.30 originally but he now knew this was due to land at 17.30. Sure enough it is a Flybe plane and we are all herded on at 17.50.
We then sit on board waiting for the plane to be refuelled and can see the deicing man waiting to do his job asa we are refuelled. We are finally refuelled just before 19.00 and then deiced and take off just after 19.00. we land at chambery around 21.35 when we should have landed at 18.25
By this time I had missed my rail connection to the resort, which was the last train of the day, and so had to take taxi to chambery, stay in hotel overnight, get new train ticket to Bourg st Maurice and then taxi to resort as no buses on Sunday - out of pocket expenses totalling 161 euros and have receipts for them all.
Written to Flybe asking for 200 euros compensation for delay and refund of expenses using your template (thanks for that). Got reply within 3 days noting that flight delayed by over 2 hours due to "operational reasons" (presumably delayed flight from Amsterdam) earlier that day and 40 mins for deicing of aircraft. .. appreciate your disappointment ... make sure all ice & snow is removed before aircaft can operate in accordance to the safety requiredments. I can assure you tht it is a major safety issue and unfortunately, aircrafts deicing cannot be processed in advance but only just before departure (not disputing that) I understand that it is most inconvenient when aircraft are delayed but on this occasion it was irreversibvle and for which I apologise.
As stated in the EC Legislation 261/2004 the airline is not required to offer compensation when the delay or cancellation is as a result of unexpected flight safety shortcomings such as de-icing aircraft which was the case on this occasion."
why do I feel I am being fobbed off? The first delay of 2.5 hours was the lack of plane, and even if the plane had been refuelled asa landed, and deiceded when we got on, the delay was such that I missed my connection - I had allowed 1.5 hours to do a trip of 15 mins by car
Can I go ahead and write further letter to Flybe and issue in the county court or have Flybe got a defence to any such claim?
Thanks - let me know if you need any further info from me0 -
I first tried to make a claim back then and was told it was cancelled due to technical reasons. I wrote to Flybe and the CAA to ask what the reasons were no luck was told out of time due to " some convention limiting claims to 2 years. I watch the Martin Lewis programme about claiming compensation and wrote to Flybe again. They have now written back again claiming technical difficulties, but this time informing me that it was VM radio. I am thinking that as I previously said to them there were only about 10 people waiting on the flight and we were re booked to a later flight which meant we lost the first day of our holiday as we had planned a trip to see what Birmingham had to offer.
Any help would be gratefully received and welcomed.0 -
the_laughing_cow wrote: »I first tried to make a claim back then and was told it was cancelled due to technical reasons. I wrote to Flybe and the CAA to ask what the reasons were no luck was told out of time due to " some convention limiting claims to 2 years. I watch the Martin Lewis programme about claiming compensation and wrote to Flybe again. They have now written back again claiming technical difficulties, but this time informing me that it was VM radio. I am thinking that as I previously said to them there were only about 10 people waiting on the flight and we were re booked to a later flight which meant we lost the first day of our holiday as we had planned a trip to see what Birmingham had to offer.
Any help would be gratefully received and welcomed.
As technical difficulties are unlikely to constitute extraordinary circumstances, write a final NBA letter giving the airline 14 days to settle your claim. The templates are in the FAQs.
Two other quick questions though:
A) when in 2007 did you fly, as you are almost out of time to claim; and
what on earth possessed you to holiday in Birmingham?;) 0 -
Just read my letter from Flybe which actually says" on arrival at Glasgow it developed a VHF Comms failure. As this was an electrical fault with the communications system the aircraft had to be withdrawn from service. Arrangements were made for you to travel on the next departing flight.( this meant over 5 hours arrival from scheduled arrival.) As the fault occurred just prior to the scheduled departure time of the flight, this is classed as an extraordinary circumstance and therefore we are unable to consider your claim for compensation in line with EC legislation. Neither are we able to consider your claim for loss of holiday. Surely this is a technical fault not an extraordinary circumstance.
I must add was not holidaying in Birmingham but flying to lanzarote the next day lol0 -
Or, just to look at it from a different direction.
The aircraft was quite capable of flight but was legally prevented by the fact that it didn't have VHF comms.
What would that make it?0 -
the_laughing_cow wrote: »As the fault occurred just prior to the scheduled departure time of the flight, this is classed as an extraordinary circumstance and therefore we are unable to consider your claim for compensation in line with EC legislation.
"this is classed as extraordinary circumstances" - by whom exactly? There is nothing in the legislation that says that a fault discovered just before departure is an extraordinary circumstance. Although an "unexpected flight safety shortcoming" is listed as an example of what might constitute an EC, the Wallentin judgement is very clear on this. I apologise to those of you that I am boring, but this is what Wallentin says:23 Although the Community legislature included in that list ‘unexpected flight safety shortcomings’ and although a technical problem in an aircraft may be amongst such shortcomings, the fact remains that the circumstances surrounding such an event can be characterised as ‘extraordinary’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 only if they relate to an event which, like those listed in recital 14 in the preamble to that regulation, is not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and is beyond the actual control of that carrier on account of its nature or origin.
24 In the light of the specific conditions in which carriage by air takes place and the degree of technological sophistication of aircraft, it must be stated that air carriers are confronted as a matter of course in the exercise of their activity with various technical problems to which the operation of those aircraft inevitably gives rise. It is moreover in order to avoid such problems and to take precautions against incidents compromising flight safety that those aircraft are subject to regular checks which are particularly strict, and which are part and parcel of the standard operating conditions of air transport undertakings. The resolution of a technical problem caused by failure to maintain an aircraft must therefore be regarded as inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier’s activity.
25 Consequently, technical problems which come to light during maintenance of aircraft or on account of failure to carry out such maintenance cannot constitute, in themselves, ‘extraordinary circumstances’ under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004.
26 However, it cannot be ruled out that technical problems are covered by those exceptional circumstances to the extent that they stem from events which are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control. That would be the case, for example, in the situation where it was revealed by the manufacturer of the aircraft comprising the fleet of the air carrier concerned, or by a competent authority, that those aircraft, although already in service, are affected by a hidden manufacturing defect which impinges on flight safety. The same would hold for damage to aircraft caused by acts of sabotage or terrorism.
27 It is therefore for the referring court to ascertain whether the technical problems cited by the air carrier involved in the case in the main proceedings stemmed from events which are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and were beyond its actual control.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards