No, Technical problems will be the term your insurance company are looking for when making a claim . You should of been given a letter either at the time of boarding or disembark at the other end . This should have confirmed the reason and time/details of the delay for your insurance .

We made a claim for "technical problems" on a 33 hours delay . You wont get much , check your insurance but ours was something like £40 per person after 12 hours and then another £20 per each additional 12 hours. It should include any children on the policy too.

If you have an excess on the policy this will make a dent too.

sorry should of read that properly .You are talking about the european regulation. I should learn to wake up of a morning before hitting the reply button

Will need to wait for someone that is a little more expert on that .

Actually Lyn, I think that your advice is spot on because as I understand it 'technical problems' with the aircraft aren't covered by the EU regulations - you have to prove that the reason for the delay was down to the actions of the airline and within their control. So the OP's only option is to try and claim under the terms of their insurance.

That said, I hope that the airline and/or the TO fed and watered them and gave them overnight accommodation for such a long delay because I think that they probably were entitled to that but not any additional financial compensation over and above this. Without more detail though, it's hard to comment any further.

SM

I thought technical problems don't count as un forseeable. Or is this the matter in the courts in other countries?

They may well not count as unforeseen circumstances but if the airline refuses to compensate you will have to go to Court to get the monies and it certainly is NOT a guaranteed win in Court.

Mark

"Technical Problems" ARE covered by the EC261 rules. There is some high level precedence involving Alitalia (no surprise there!) and an Austrian court, where the passengers won. At this point there was "stated case" but only in Austria, luckily for everyone Alitalia then took it to appeal at the European Court of Justice and lost spectacularly! So there's now a ruling that applies to the whole Union and every airline in it. Excellent!! Obviously the UK press missed this vital case almost completely because it involved foreigners.

There is some more info. about the court ruling here http://www.air-passenger-rights.co.uk/c-54907-wallentin-hermann-v-alitalia/ but bear in mind that is not a court publication so if you ned to take matters further you'll have to do more research.

BUT, the bad news. At present you may have nothing the claim. The wording of the EC261 Delay rule never allowed for compensation, just assistance whilst delayed. Some courts were awarding money based on the Cancellation rule but that matter has now been referred to the ECJ and UK courts are not accepting any claims until the matter is sorted out there (after all, it is not UK policy to allow ordinary people to stand up to big companies). So all you were entitled to was food, phone calls and hotel for the night. And the option to cancel ater 5 hours (not easy on a package tour).

But you should definately claim the cash allowance off your insurance, it's one of the few areas where they can't argue and possibly the only chance you'll have of getting something back off them.

Things break despite any maintenance that you may do. It applies, for example, to your car. Tyres puncture usually without any notification. You wake up in the morning and you flick on the kitchen light, and it goes pop. You switch on your car lights and you discover a rear light suddenly stopped working despite the car being serviced to the manufacturers schedule.

The same can happen to airplanes.

This ruling is not a catch all and I personally would not advise anybody that because an airline claims it is a technical problem just quoting this legislation in a Court is a sure way of getting what you're after.

Mark

The court ruling stated that "things breaking" is a normal part of day to day aeroplane operation and therefore not exceptional circumstances as exempted in the rules. Like you say lights go pop, therefore airlines and car owners should keep spares readily available. And if it needs a technician to change it then arrangements should be in place for one to be available within a reasonable time. Incidentally, that's basically how the law has worked for years with cars. The police generally accept that a headlight bulb can go pop at anytime, you get a spare out of the boot there and then (thus showing reasonable preparedness) and fit it and there's usually nothing more said.

What might be classed as exceptional is perhaps a main system and it's backup breaking at the same time and only one part being kept in stock at that airport. Or a sudden surge in faults that the normal, reasonable amount of spares and technicians couldn't keep up with. But if the airline wants to claim a technical problem is exceptional it would have to show why.

Where there is a genuine claim under the rules it probably won't need a court case, and likewise where it isn't covered by the rules there probably isn't any point in trying to claim. The middle ground is when an airline simply says they are fed up with the rule so are ignoring it, in which case you don't go to court, you go to the enforcement agency of the countries involved (airport location and airline base) - in the UK this would be the CAA.

I am always interested in the discussions and comments made here on HT on this particular subject. Having spent many years in the motor trade and particularly in the commercial service sector i would, in some ways view aircraft as being akin to the haulage industry and heavy commercial vehicles in particular. Vehicles whilst serviced an a regular basis do break down. The very nature of the industry requires that when such things happen repairs are speedily carried out. Timed deliveries and perishable goods means that an adequate supply of parts have to be available to ensure a speedy turn round. I do wonder when I hear tales that an aircraft is awaiting parts is simply because nobody asks if anyone has got one. To be told that a part has been flown from Gatwick often sounds to me to be a cop out. Most of the airports have serice facilities for several airlines and I would have thought that there would because say Monarch had a faulty part they might ask say Thomson if they had one in stock. After all they only really fly Boeing or Airbus. Have not the manufacturers got some commonality of parts, or is a fuel guage from one 757 or A380 different from another of the same make and model?
Certainly the dealers I worked for had a large amount of money invested in parts and dealers did do a lot of inter dealer transfer/sales to ensure a quick turn round.

fwh

The police generally accept that a headlight bulb can go pop at anytime, you get a spare out of the boot there and then (thus showing reasonable preparedness) and fit it and there's usually nothing more said.

Don't know anyone that carries spares in the boot apart from a tyre or a bottle of foam to fill the tyre

I do wonder when I hear tales that an aircraft is awaiting parts is simply because nobody asks if anyone has got one. To be told that a part has been flown from Gatwick often sounds to me to be a cop out. Most of the airports have serice facilities for several airlines and I would have thought that there would because say Monarch had a faulty part they might ask say Thomson if they had one in stock. After all they only really fly Boeing or Airbus. Have not the manufacturers got some commonality of parts, or is a fuel guage from one 757 or A380 different from another of the same make and model?
Certainly the dealers I worked for had a large amount of money invested in parts and dealers did do a lot of inter dealer transfer/sales to ensure a quick turn round.

Oh come on fwh! You're expecting them to show some common sense! Youi know better than that of the travel industry, expecting them to help their rivals out? This is an instance of where we need a 'smilie' for 'pigs might fly'

SM

API - and have you ever been stopped for having a light out and laughed at the police when they suggest it would be reasonable common sense to have spare bulbs? Guess what happens when you do! In fact so many people agree it's a good idea to carry them they are often sold in boxed sets or included with a new car.

fwh - what is common is not that one airline lends parts to another but that both use the same "away from home" maintenance company which has a common store for all it's customers. That's where the exceptional might come into play. Say a part is very expensive and fails so rarely (say once a month over all customers) that the service company only keeps one in stock. Then one day by coincedence Monarch and Thomson both need it at the same time - that might be classed as exceptional. Reasonable would be that the airline maintains it's planes at home, has a breakdown agent away and that the agent has an average month's supply in stock - exceptional is they need two month's in one day. But the airline should produce the records to back the claim. You are true that in the past they seem to have got into a habit of not having away from home arrangements for much more than what you'd have on your car - hopefully the ECJ ruling may focus some minds!

It is not as simple as you think, I guess, to repair, for example, a tyre on an airplane, similar that it is not simple to change a tyre on a truck for example - it takes 3 hours by the time a technician has been called out, goes to the scene and changes the tyre. You can't just use a jack like a car, similar to I imagine not being able to just jack up an airplane to change a tyre. I would imagine it is not simple to change a bulb either on a plane and if that bulb is critical to the operation of the plane, it won't go nowhere without it working.

The same applies, I imagine, to airplanes. When we back in May flew back from Aruba, the entertainment system didn't work and a technician tried to fix it no avail on the ground - that took 30 minutes for a simple trying to reboot the system (i was sat at the front and watched him going through the motions for 30 minutes to try to get it reset).

You can't have every single part at every single airport a plane may fly to. Things break down despite regular maintenance.

I rather have a plane grounded to be fixed rather than an airline deciding to risk it rather than having to pay 200 passengers compensation if it was as simple as quoting this regulation for a sure way to get compensation!

Mark

I rather think that the truth is often there just are not any parts in strategic locations. Far easier to fly them out on the next flight to many of the destinations. In the motor trade as far as cars are concerned they operate a central stocking system and 24 hour delivery. If parts are ordered before 4.00pm then you get them the next day Just make sure that they have diagnosed the fault and identified the parts needed before 4.00pm otherwise there will be at least one extra day.

I know we should not expect the airlines to have any sense - it is just that I hope they might one day. Personally I would rather be safe than sorry. I am not really bothered about compensation provided I am looked after in a proper manner - not just dumped at the airport and left to rot which does seem to be the norm.

fwh

I have a brand new car and i can assure you there is no spare bulb.


Most times when a bulb goes its either full beam that blows or dip you are still left with one or the other in my experience.

Most times when a bulb goes its either full beam that blows or dip you are still left with one or the other in my experience.

And in my experience, whether your headlights are working on full or dip or neither, they're irrelevant to whether your other lights are working when it's a brake light or indicator bulb that's blown! And I'm sure it won't matter to the police either. I can't see it cutting any ice with them when they stop a driver who's brake or rear sidelights aren't working, turns around and says 'But my headlights are working so that's OK - let me off'.

And just before we all go seriously off topic, yes, I do know someone who carries spare bulbs, and a torch, and a basic toolkit, and a blanket in the boot of the car - my Dad who still takes his Scout promise to heart and is always prepared.

SM

Good i am pleased you know someone who is prepared.

Police must be harsher where you live as they will just stop you here and tell you to get it fixed.

SMA dont even know why you answered as i was not even talking to you
so get of your horse

but still pleased for you

steve8482 wrote:

. Most of the airports have serice facilities for several airlines and I would have thought that there would because say Monarch had a faulty part they might ask say Thomson if they had one in stock. After all they only really fly Boeing or Airbus. Have not the manufacturers got some commonality of parts, or is a fuel guage from one 757 or A380 different from another of the same make and model?

Airlines do loan spares to each other; it can be a very lucrative business. However, there is quite a variation between aircraft of the same type. For example the Airbus A320 can come with either Rolls Royce or CFM engines which means different interfaces between the engines, hydraulic, fuel and pneumatic systems. To add to this not all CFM engines fitted to an Airbus are rated the same power. When you go to buy a set of brake pads for your Ford Focus they want to know the year of manufacture and, maybe, various other items of the cars spec. Sometimes they even want the serial number of the car as a change to the part was made during the production run. The same applies to aircraft; improvements are made as time passes. Aircraft may look the same from the outside but underneath they can be quite different. It is just not practical to keep all parts for all aircraft in stock.