Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • strawberry*
    • By strawberry* 11th Apr 18, 4:34 PM
    • 9Posts
    • 1Thanks
    strawberry*
    Connecting flight query
    • #1
    • 11th Apr 18, 4:34 PM
    Connecting flight query 11th Apr 18 at 4:34 PM
    Hi all


    My partner and I recently flew with Qatar Airways, from London Heathrow to Colombo (Sri Lanka). Our first flight from LHR to Doha landed on time, but our second flight was delayed arriving in Colombo around 3.5 hours.


    As we bought these two flights on one ticket, with one booking reference, I had assumed that this would be covered under EC261 (although Qatar is not an EU carrier, we were departing originally from LHR). I thought I had seen a case where this siutation had been fought and won but annoyingly I can't locate it now. I made my claim using Resolver. Qatar have now come back to me to say we are not covered as Doha and Colombo are both outside of the EU, and they are not an EU carrier.


    Interested in your thoughts...
Page 1
    • Tyzap
    • By Tyzap 11th Apr 18, 4:44 PM
    • 1,337 Posts
    • 625 Thanks
    Tyzap
    • #2
    • 11th Apr 18, 4:44 PM
    • #2
    • 11th Apr 18, 4:44 PM
    Hi all

    Interested in your thoughts...
    Originally posted by strawberry*
    Hi strawberry,

    If there was no delay when you left LHR, that then caused you to miss your connection, you don't have a claim I'm afraid.

    The case you were looking for was Emirates, but there was a delay in the EU in that case which qualified it for compensation.

    Good luck,
    Please read Vaubans superb guide. To find it Google and then download 'vaubans guide'.
    • JPears
    • By JPears 11th Apr 18, 5:06 PM
    • 3,590 Posts
    • 996 Thanks
    JPears
    • #3
    • 11th Apr 18, 5:06 PM
    • #3
    • 11th Apr 18, 5:06 PM
    Qatar are lying to you.
    This matter was settled in the Gahan/Buckley v Emirates case in the Supreme Court.
    Part of the Judgement, that in bold type is the 1st and 2nd parts of your legal arguements.
    5. The Court of Appeal allowed Miss Gahan’s appeal and dismissed Emirate’s so that compensation was available for both legs in both cases. The Court started with the basic proposition that:
    ‘… where a carrier provides a passenger with more than one flight to enable him to arrive at his destination, the flights are taken together for the purpose of assessing whether there has been three hours or more delay.’ [73]
    6. Accordingly, what counted was the delay in a passenger reaching their final destination. This was based on EU jurisprudence from Sturgeon v Condor Flugdienst GmbH [2009] ECR 1-10923 (C-402/07 and C-432/07), and from Air France SA v Folkerts [2013] (C-11/11), in both of which the Court of Justice for the European Union (“CJEU”) held that compensation under Article 7 of the Regulation was to be quantified by reference to the delay in arriving at the passengers’ final destination. In the case of directly connecting flights, a passenger’s final destination was the destination of the last flight (Article 2(h)).
    Jurisdiction under the Regulation
    7. The Court went onto reject Emirates’ second argument that the Regulation did not apply to flights operated by non-Community carriers (such as Emirates) outside of the EU. The Court considered that the Regulation took effect:
    ‘… when the carrier is present in the EU and it imposes a contingent liability on the carrier at that point. The liability may never crystallise but if it does do so, it will crystallise outside the jurisdiction.’ [76]
    8. The basis for jurisdiction over non-Community carriers under the Regulation was, contrary to the submission on behalf of Emirates, territorial in nature [77]. It was sufficient that the first of two connecting flights departed from the EU. There were two reasons for this:
    (a) the activity outside the EU was not relevant to jurisdiction, but to quantum. The Regulation applies to non-Community carriers because they use EU airports. Measuring delay by reference to connecting flights is simply the best way of measuring inconvenience [78]; and
    (b) the decision was supported by the case of Holmes v Bangladesh Biman Corp [1989] AC 1112 which suggests that place of departure, stopping place, or destination are sufficient to avoid breaching extraterritoriality [79].
    If you're new. read The FAQ and Vauban's Guide

    The alleged Ringleader.........
    • JPears
    • By JPears 11th Apr 18, 5:08 PM
    • 3,590 Posts
    • 996 Thanks
    JPears
    • #4
    • 11th Apr 18, 5:08 PM
    • #4
    • 11th Apr 18, 5:08 PM
    Erm Tyzap, I fear you may be wrong, although I stand to be corrected if my interpretation of the judgement is wrong or taken out of contaxt?
    If you're new. read The FAQ and Vauban's Guide

    The alleged Ringleader.........
    • strawberry*
    • By strawberry* 11th Apr 18, 5:42 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    strawberry*
    • #5
    • 11th Apr 18, 5:42 PM
    Hmmmm
    • #5
    • 11th Apr 18, 5:42 PM
    Thank you both for your replies. I think that Emirates case was the one I was thinking of. I am interested that you have both interpreted this in different ways though - could you expand on your viewpoint Tyzap?


    I still feel a little unsure about this as it appears that in the Emirates case there was a delay within the EU as well as a second delay and they were compensated for both in the end. In my case, there was no delay within the EU, just in reaching the final destination.


    Many thanks
    • Tyzap
    • By Tyzap 11th Apr 18, 6:04 PM
    • 1,337 Posts
    • 625 Thanks
    Tyzap
    • #6
    • 11th Apr 18, 6:04 PM
    • #6
    • 11th Apr 18, 6:04 PM
    Erm Tyzap, I fear you may be wrong, although I stand to be corrected if my interpretation of the judgement is wrong or taken out of contaxt?
    Originally posted by JPears
    http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.php?news_id=2029297

    and

    http://www.kennedyslaw.com/casereview/final-destination-considered-key-by-court-of-appeal-in-flight-delay-liability-claims/
    Last edited by Tyzap; 11-04-2018 at 6:21 PM. Reason: Link did not work.
    Please read Vaubans superb guide. To find it Google and then download 'vaubans guide'.
    • JPears
    • By JPears 11th Apr 18, 8:54 PM
    • 3,590 Posts
    • 996 Thanks
    JPears
    • #7
    • 11th Apr 18, 8:54 PM
    • #7
    • 11th Apr 18, 8:54 PM
    Those are articles written by journos?
    This is the law according to the Supreme court:
    5. The Court of Appeal allowed Miss Gahan!!!8217;s appeal and dismissed Emirate!!!8217;s so that compensation was available for both legs in both cases. The Court started with the basic proposition that:
    where a carrier provides a passenger with more than one flight to enable him to arrive at his destination, the flights are taken together for the purpose of assessing whether there has been three hours or more delay; [73]
    6. Accordingly, what counted was the delay in a passenger reaching their final destination. This was based on EU jurisprudence from Sturgeon v Condor Flugdienst GmbH [2009] ECR 1-10923 (C-402/07 and C-432/07), and from Air France SA v Folkerts [2013] (C-11/11), in both of which the Court of Justice for the European Union (!!!8220;CJEU!!!8221 held that compensation under Article 7 of the Regulation was to be quantified by reference to the delay in arriving at the passengers!!!8217; final destination. In the case of directly connecting flights, a passenger!!!8217;s final destination was the destination of the last flight (Article 2(h)).
    If the flight started in the UK and finishes outside of the UK on a different leg, it is the whole journey that is considered in respect of regulation 261/2004. I think this is clear cut and unambiguous.
    I welcome the counter argument
    If you're new. read The FAQ and Vauban's Guide

    The alleged Ringleader.........
    • Tyzap
    • By Tyzap 11th Apr 18, 9:31 PM
    • 1,337 Posts
    • 625 Thanks
    Tyzap
    • #8
    • 11th Apr 18, 9:31 PM
    • #8
    • 11th Apr 18, 9:31 PM
    If a passenger leaves the EU 2 hours late but misses their connection to Sydney, in say Dubai, they are at that point not due any compensation. Due to the missed connection they arrive at Sydney (their final destination) 6 hours late, they are then due EU261 compensation. Hence the final destination stipulation.

    Say the passenger left the EU on time and arrived at Dubai on time but then the flight to Sydney was delayed by 6 hours upon arrival (their final destination) they would not be due 261 compensation.

    Thats because the second flight is a none EU airline, departing from a none EU airport arriving at another none EU airport. No part of the delay occurred in the EU so no EU261 compensation.

    Nothing I have said is contradictory to your quote, it's just the way it is interpreted.

    If you can find a case where there was no delay in the EU, but compensation was paid, I would be very interested to read about it.
    Please read Vaubans superb guide. To find it Google and then download 'vaubans guide'.
    • JPears
    • By JPears 12th Apr 18, 8:59 AM
    • 3,590 Posts
    • 996 Thanks
    JPears
    • #9
    • 12th Apr 18, 8:59 AM
    • #9
    • 12th Apr 18, 8:59 AM
    Say the passenger left the EU on time and arrived at Dubai on time but then the flight to Sydney was delayed by 6 hours upon arrival (their final destination) they would not be due 261 compensation.

    Thats because the second flight is a none EU airline, departing from a none EU airport arriving at another none EU airport. No part of the delay occurred in the EU so no EU261 compensation.
    Is this not covered by point 5 and 6 of the Supreme Court ruling shown above?
    Perhaps yet another grey area that needs a legal precedent set?
    If you're new. read The FAQ and Vauban's Guide

    The alleged Ringleader.........
    • Caz3121
    • By Caz3121 12th Apr 18, 9:22 AM
    • 11,151 Posts
    • 7,324 Thanks
    Caz3121
    Perhaps yet another grey area that needs a legal precedent set?
    Originally posted by JPears
    I read it the same as Tyzap and the MSE article seems to be along the same lines https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/travel/2018/03/emirates-agrees-to-pay-compensation-for-missed-connections?_ga=2.259887690.1790666665.1518421612-2098061591.1442126683
    "If you were delayed on the first leg of your journey, missed a connecting flight as a result and arrived at your final destination at least three hours late, "

    If it was for delays anywhere along the journey, someone could fly LON-JFK on Virgin and that flight is on time, then have a flight from JFK-XXX with Delta which is delayed due to technical problems resulting in a 4 hour delay...who is there a claim from? Virgin flight all on time, Delta would decline as non-EU flight/carrier...
    • JPears
    • By JPears 12th Apr 18, 9:30 AM
    • 3,590 Posts
    • 996 Thanks
    JPears
    We will have to agree to disagree.
    Your link is to MSE's interpretation (and how often have they stated incorrect facts with regards to 261/2004?)
    I can see nothing in the CoA determination (my apologies for saying it was SC in error) that differentiates where the delay actually occurred?
    Again point 5 is pretty clear cut to me.
    If you're new. read The FAQ and Vauban's Guide

    The alleged Ringleader.........
    • Caz3121
    • By Caz3121 12th Apr 18, 9:52 AM
    • 11,151 Posts
    • 7,324 Thanks
    Caz3121
    Again point 5 is pretty clear cut to me.
    Originally posted by JPears
    who would the claim be from if there were different airlines involved and the flight departing from the EU was on time with no delays?
    - I can see people being sent round in circles with this...
    • Tyzap
    • By Tyzap 12th Apr 18, 10:16 AM
    • 1,337 Posts
    • 625 Thanks
    Tyzap

    Again point 5 is pretty clear cut to me.
    Originally posted by JPears
    Thats because Miss Gahan would not have qualified for any compensation had the final destination not been used as the final delay point. It's pretty clear and logical, you're just mis reading it.
    Last edited by Tyzap; 13-04-2018 at 8:43 AM. Reason: clarity
    Please read Vaubans superb guide. To find it Google and then download 'vaubans guide'.
    • JPears
    • By JPears 12th Apr 18, 12:38 PM
    • 3,590 Posts
    • 996 Thanks
    JPears
    Anyway back to the OP's Q - Strawberry* - you can see how much reg 261/2004 is littered with problems. Tyzap and myself are having a healthy discussion, not an argument
    Have you tried putting your details into an online checker such as Botts online? They will indicate if you have a potential claim or not.
    If you're new. read The FAQ and Vauban's Guide

    The alleged Ringleader.........
    • Justice13075
    • By Justice13075 12th Apr 18, 1:18 PM
    • 1,086 Posts
    • 450 Thanks
    Justice13075
    I have been reading the conversation regarding Emirates and I will throw in my twopenniesworth. I think JPears is correct.

    Artice 5 states "where a carrier provides a passenger with more than one flight to enable him to arrive at his destination, the flights, ARE TAKEN TOGETHER for the purpose of assessing whether there has been three hours or more delay."

    If the court were saying you had to arrive in Dubai late which caused you to miss your connecting flight surely they would have said something like.

    "where a carrier provides a passenger with more than one flight to enable him to arrive at his destination and THE FIRST FLIGHT FROM THE EU MUST ARRIVE LATE SO AS TO MAKE THE PASSENGER MISS HIS CONNECTION, for the purpose of assessing whether there has been three hours or more delay." Just my take on this.
    • JPears
    • By JPears 12th Apr 18, 1:19 PM
    • 3,590 Posts
    • 996 Thanks
    JPears
    That is my take, you explained it better
    If you're new. read The FAQ and Vauban's Guide

    The alleged Ringleader.........
    • Justice13075
    • By Justice13075 12th Apr 18, 1:37 PM
    • 1,086 Posts
    • 450 Thanks
    Justice13075
    That's a compliment coming from you.
    • JPears
    • By JPears 12th Apr 18, 1:51 PM
    • 3,590 Posts
    • 996 Thanks
    JPears
    Pfft...
    If you're new. read The FAQ and Vauban's Guide

    The alleged Ringleader.........
    • Tyzap
    • By Tyzap 12th Apr 18, 5:13 PM
    • 1,337 Posts
    • 625 Thanks
    Tyzap
    As the old saying goes.

    You can lead a horse to water......

    Perhaps one day you will see the light
    Please read Vaubans superb guide. To find it Google and then download 'vaubans guide'.
    • Caz3121
    • By Caz3121 12th Apr 18, 7:15 PM
    • 11,151 Posts
    • 7,324 Thanks
    Caz3121
    Artice 5 states "where a carrier provides a passenger with more than one flight to enable him to arrive at his destination, the flights, ARE TAKEN TOGETHER for the purpose of assessing whether there has been three hours or more delay."
    Originally posted by Justice13075
    I think this is open to different interpretation..and does need clarified

    If you picture the following scenario....
    single ticket booked LGW-DXB-SYD-TMW WITH LGW-DXB AND DXB-SYD both operated by Emirates and both sectors run on time...so far so good
    Connection in SYD-TMW (operated by Sunset - a Qantas subsidiary) has a technical problem and is delayed so final arrival is over 4 hours....
    If we ask 10 people "Is there a claim?" there will be different views
    but who would pay the €600?
    Operating airline of the delayed flight is a small Australian domestic. Should they be paying €600 to any long haul connecting passengers when they have a delayed flight?
    surely that is not the intent of the regulations
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

123Posts Today

1,442Users online

Martin's Twitter