Hi detori ... in case you haven't seen them, the terms of the EU legislation are outlined on page 1 of this thread. However, they do apply primarily to delayed or cancelled departure, with compensation varying according to the level of delay or notice of cancellation.
What you appear to be referring to is an on-time departure, but with a delayed arrival due to an unscheduled stop. I'm not sure what you may be hoping to claim for in respect of a 3 hour delay to your arrival, but there is no statutory compensation for delays of less than 5 hours. For delays of between 2 and 5 hours, legislation only allows for free food, drink, phonecalls and emails, not all of which would have been possible in your case as you were in-flight.
David
What you appear to be referring to is an on-time departure, but with a delayed arrival due to an unscheduled stop. I'm not sure what you may be hoping to claim for in respect of a 3 hour delay to your arrival, but there is no statutory compensation for delays of less than 5 hours. For delays of between 2 and 5 hours, legislation only allows for free food, drink, phonecalls and emails, not all of which would have been possible in your case as you were in-flight.
David
I am asking for compensation, as I paid for a direct flight but did not get what I paid for surely this comes under trade descriptions act. I mean if I bought a train ticket to Devon, and the train driver decided to go to Blackpool to pick up some passengers who's train had broken down, I would have a case! I worked for an airline for 6 years and have never heard of such a thing, if one of our planes went tech, we would hotel the passengers until we could gt the plane fixed or another plane, or we would pay for them to be taken with another carrier. Cyprus Airways seem to think they they are a law unto themselves and were just trying to save money!!
If I had wanted a non direct flight (which would have been at a lower cost) that is what I would have purchased.
If I had wanted a non direct flight (which would have been at a lower cost) that is what I would have purchased.
Hi detori ... this particular topic is more specific to EU legislation on flight delays, cancellations and overbooking, rather than to the Trade Description Act or any other piece of legislation. As far as the EU legislation is concerned, I can't see any section that would help you with regard to a 3 hour delay or the unscheduled stop.
The basis of your claim for compensation is that you booked a direct flight, but did not get what you paid for. Having worked for an airline, you may be aware that the industry does not necessarily regard a direct flight as a non-stop flight. A direct flight is generally regarded as one which does not require a change of aircraft on route, however it may make a stop or stops to pick up or drop off passengers, or for refuelling. However, whether the fact that your stop was unscheduled makes a difference, I wouldn't know. Many airlines stipulate in booking conditions that unscheduled stops may be made for operational reasons. As your unscheduled stop resulted in a delay of just 3 hours, that may fall short of the criteria for any compensation or insurance benefits.
However, you may like to take some free and impartial advice on the matter from Ros Fernihough, a solicitor specialising in travel law, who will have much more expertise on whether this or any other piece of legislation would assist your claim. She can be contacted on 01922 621114. Do let us know how you get on.
David
The basis of your claim for compensation is that you booked a direct flight, but did not get what you paid for. Having worked for an airline, you may be aware that the industry does not necessarily regard a direct flight as a non-stop flight. A direct flight is generally regarded as one which does not require a change of aircraft on route, however it may make a stop or stops to pick up or drop off passengers, or for refuelling. However, whether the fact that your stop was unscheduled makes a difference, I wouldn't know. Many airlines stipulate in booking conditions that unscheduled stops may be made for operational reasons. As your unscheduled stop resulted in a delay of just 3 hours, that may fall short of the criteria for any compensation or insurance benefits.
However, you may like to take some free and impartial advice on the matter from Ros Fernihough, a solicitor specialising in travel law, who will have much more expertise on whether this or any other piece of legislation would assist your claim. She can be contacted on 01922 621114. Do let us know how you get on.
David
Anyone claimed this from an airline?
Just been bumped by TCD (XL) 24 hours and as I understand it I'm entitled to over £400 a ticket in compensation.
Just wondered if anyone has tried it?
Just been bumped by TCD (XL) 24 hours and as I understand it I'm entitled to over £400 a ticket in compensation.
Just wondered if anyone has tried it?
Why do you think that mrscopeman?
You have a "right to care" which covers things like meals, refreshments, telephone calls, hotel accommodation etc (all with provisos and limitations) and in your case with a long delay the "right to reimbursement" - but if taking this option that means a refund if you choose not to take the flight - not take the flight and a refund.
If you have holiday insurance it might be worth checking that to see if you can claim a set amount for a delayed departure. Normally £10-£50 per person depending how good your policy is.
You have a "right to care" which covers things like meals, refreshments, telephone calls, hotel accommodation etc (all with provisos and limitations) and in your case with a long delay the "right to reimbursement" - but if taking this option that means a refund if you choose not to take the flight - not take the flight and a refund.
If you have holiday insurance it might be worth checking that to see if you can claim a set amount for a delayed departure. Normally £10-£50 per person depending how good your policy is.
By being "bumped" do you mean that you were denied boarding (on to a flight on which you were booked and which subsequently departed under the same flight number) due to overbooking and were not a "volunteer" for off-loading? If so, then you may well have a case for compensation. If the flight was cancelled then their responsibilities are the meals, refreshments and hotel etc. Only if they do not provide an alternative flight "close to the original time" will you possibly get compensation. Whether "24 Hours" is a reasonable delay (which, for a daily flight it might be) is a matter for debate. I would recommend that you raise this in the "complaints" section for further advice, plus contact Ros Fernihough who is a solicitor specialising in travel law (01922 621114).
Cheers,
Jet
Cheers,
Jet
jetnoise - mrscopeman was experiencing a 24hrs technical delay. She had posted this information on another thread
I understand that XLA130 MAN/SFB 29JUL finally departed some 25hrs late.
Just been called by TCD, we have been bumped 24 hours because of a technical fault with a plane which meant today flight didn't fly. We were supposed to be flying tommorrow, nows its Monday.
I understand that XLA130 MAN/SFB 29JUL finally departed some 25hrs late.
Ah ha, thanks for that Traveller. In this case no compensation - just the care you described.
Cheers,
Jet
Cheers,
Jet
As I understand it a chap travelling with Thomas Cook managed to argue in court (small claims) that a 24 hour delay is equivalent to a cancellation even if the flight number stays the same.
Its onlt £20 to lodge a claim so I might just do that.
The replacement aircraft was not up to standard either, as it was a troop carrying plane and was subject to another 6 hour delay on the actual flight day.
Its onlt £20 to lodge a claim so I might just do that.
The replacement aircraft was not up to standard either, as it was a troop carrying plane and was subject to another 6 hour delay on the actual flight day.
I'm not aware of that TC case. As far as I know the County Courts decision/ruling don't set precedence so even if this TC case was awarded in the passengers favour, it doesn't mean that future claims would be.
Why don't you initially write to Excel. Detail facts and remain polite. See if they offer any compensation. I would at least try this first before trying the small claims route. You may get a small token amount back as a gesture of good will, or a discount voucher for a future flight.
Will your insurance cover you for compensation - albeit a small amount.
Unless you were strapped to wooden benches and flew on a C130 Hercules or placed on a RAF Tristar, I'm not sure you will get anywhere with the troop carrying plane arguement. Was it an Air Atlanta B747 by chance? The MoD charter aircraft from many different airlines to move troops around. Just because the aircraft may have been used to fly our brave boys and girls around, doesn't make it substandard.
Why don't you initially write to Excel. Detail facts and remain polite. See if they offer any compensation. I would at least try this first before trying the small claims route. You may get a small token amount back as a gesture of good will, or a discount voucher for a future flight.
Will your insurance cover you for compensation - albeit a small amount.
Unless you were strapped to wooden benches and flew on a C130 Hercules or placed on a RAF Tristar, I'm not sure you will get anywhere with the troop carrying plane arguement. Was it an Air Atlanta B747 by chance? The MoD charter aircraft from many different airlines to move troops around. Just because the aircraft may have been used to fly our brave boys and girls around, doesn't make it substandard.
Will be writing to XL, thats the first step.
The Jumbo used was substandard. Seats not as advertised (pitch and type), entertainement not working (stewardess tried to fix with gaffer tape), was not clean and the pilot apologised for the state of it, but did reassure passengers (which he had to do) it was air worthy. Also the "sit together" option wasn't. We got adult and child together which is an obligation, yet we paid for sit togther.
We were NOT told about the state of the replacement aircraft people only knew when they boarded.
The 24 hour delay was a "holding" delay, we spoke to the pilot and he confirmed that the plane had flown from the Falklands, to Ascension, then Gatwick and then Manchester. He confirmed this couldn't be done, and go to Sanford with just a 24 hours delay. So XL in effect took the decision to not tell the whole truth about the scope of the delay or were incompetent in scoping the delay.
Also they have used the standard and poor get out clause of "exceptional circumstances". XL have a fleet of aircraft and should have at least one spare plane, or an arrangement with their suppliers for planes to cover mechanical/technical faults. Thats partly what the EU legislation is about.
I'll be pushing for the hotel costs, even though they called us before we left, we felt it necessary to have to stay overnight as our flight had been pushed into the area where we needed to travel up the M6 during rush hour, meaning we might risk missing the flight.
We also missed a character breakfast, lost a day in a theme park and suffered distress. All of which I can claim against XL/TCD.
I'm happy to negotiate, but the TC case was not challenged in the high court, and although it does as you say not set proper precedence, it can be used as a case in point for reference by a judge/solicitor.
The Jumbo used was substandard. Seats not as advertised (pitch and type), entertainement not working (stewardess tried to fix with gaffer tape), was not clean and the pilot apologised for the state of it, but did reassure passengers (which he had to do) it was air worthy. Also the "sit together" option wasn't. We got adult and child together which is an obligation, yet we paid for sit togther.
We were NOT told about the state of the replacement aircraft people only knew when they boarded.
The 24 hour delay was a "holding" delay, we spoke to the pilot and he confirmed that the plane had flown from the Falklands, to Ascension, then Gatwick and then Manchester. He confirmed this couldn't be done, and go to Sanford with just a 24 hours delay. So XL in effect took the decision to not tell the whole truth about the scope of the delay or were incompetent in scoping the delay.
Also they have used the standard and poor get out clause of "exceptional circumstances". XL have a fleet of aircraft and should have at least one spare plane, or an arrangement with their suppliers for planes to cover mechanical/technical faults. Thats partly what the EU legislation is about.
I'll be pushing for the hotel costs, even though they called us before we left, we felt it necessary to have to stay overnight as our flight had been pushed into the area where we needed to travel up the M6 during rush hour, meaning we might risk missing the flight.
We also missed a character breakfast, lost a day in a theme park and suffered distress. All of which I can claim against XL/TCD.
I'm happy to negotiate, but the TC case was not challenged in the high court, and although it does as you say not set proper precedence, it can be used as a case in point for reference by a judge/solicitor.
I'm not sure that the EU regulations makes stipulation about airlines having to have replacement aircraft available. I guess August is probably a very busy time and "spare" aircraft options are limited - not just for XL but any airline.
I'm sorry that your holiday got off to a disappointing start but hope that you enjoyed Florida once you arrived.
Good luck with your claim.
I'm sorry that your holiday got off to a disappointing start but hope that you enjoyed Florida once you arrived.
Good luck with your claim.
European Court makes ruling over airline compensation
The European Court of Justice has ruled that airlines should compensate passengers if they cancel a flight for technical reasons, unless they can prove that circumstances are "extraordinary".
It says "extraordinary" circumstances would include a defect revealed by the manufacturer, or acts of sabotage or terrorism.
But technical problems which come to light during maintenance of aircraft, or on account of failure to carry out such maintenance, do not make airlines exempt from compensating passengers.
"It is not ruled out that technical problems are covered by '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," said the Court.
The move was welcomed by Francesca Ecsery, general manager of Cheapflights.co.uk.
"Safety is important and this decision actually places higher emphasis on aircraft maintenance as it will encourage airlines to ensure their aircraft are fully operational at all times," she said.
"The joy of travel has been lost by consumers over the last few years and ensuring their holidays start and end with seamless check-in and smooth boarding procedures, not last minute delays or cancellations, will encourage more people to rediscover the pleasures of flying."
The ruling was made after a claim by an Austrian couple against Alitalia.
An engine defect meant the couple were unable to take their scheduled flight from Vienna to Brindisi via Rome, and the Italian carrier transferred them to an Austrian Airlines flight instead.
The Alitalia flight was cancelled five minutes before the scheduled departure time, even though the defect had been discovered the day before, and the couple arrived in Brindisi nearly four hours late.
Alitalia had refused to pay compensation of £235, so the couple took Alitalia to court in Vienna.
There, the Austrian Commercial Court asked the European Court to define the concept of "extraordinary circumstances" that could exempt an airline from paying compensation.
With permission from Travelmole
The European Court of Justice has ruled that airlines should compensate passengers if they cancel a flight for technical reasons, unless they can prove that circumstances are "extraordinary".
It says "extraordinary" circumstances would include a defect revealed by the manufacturer, or acts of sabotage or terrorism.
But technical problems which come to light during maintenance of aircraft, or on account of failure to carry out such maintenance, do not make airlines exempt from compensating passengers.
"It is not ruled out that technical problems are covered by '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," said the Court.
The move was welcomed by Francesca Ecsery, general manager of Cheapflights.co.uk.
"Safety is important and this decision actually places higher emphasis on aircraft maintenance as it will encourage airlines to ensure their aircraft are fully operational at all times," she said.
"The joy of travel has been lost by consumers over the last few years and ensuring their holidays start and end with seamless check-in and smooth boarding procedures, not last minute delays or cancellations, will encourage more people to rediscover the pleasures of flying."
The ruling was made after a claim by an Austrian couple against Alitalia.
An engine defect meant the couple were unable to take their scheduled flight from Vienna to Brindisi via Rome, and the Italian carrier transferred them to an Austrian Airlines flight instead.
The Alitalia flight was cancelled five minutes before the scheduled departure time, even though the defect had been discovered the day before, and the couple arrived in Brindisi nearly four hours late.
Alitalia had refused to pay compensation of £235, so the couple took Alitalia to court in Vienna.
There, the Austrian Commercial Court asked the European Court to define the concept of "extraordinary circumstances" that could exempt an airline from paying compensation.
With permission from Travelmole
Passenger groups hail ‘historic' airline delay compensation ruling
Consumer groups have hailed as ‘historic' a European decision to requiring airlines to compensate travellers for long flight delays.
The ruling will require airlines in the European Union to compensate victims of mass delays for which they are responsible.
Passengers who are forced to wait three hours or more will be compensated 600 euros, the same as if their flight had been cancelled, the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg decided yesterday.
Airlines will be required not to cancel a flight unless it fits strict criteria set down in the new law.
The ruling stated: "Passengers on a flight which is cancelled at short notice have a right to compensation, even when they are re-routed by the airline on another flight, if they lose three hours or more in relation to the duration originally planned."
The judges said that a technical problem with an aircraft could not be regarded as an "extraordinary circumstance", unless the problem stemmed from events which "by their nature or origin are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control".
The ruling came in a judgment clarifying a five-year-old EU regulation which grants flat-rate compensation for cancelled flights of between 250 euros and 600 euros (£223 to £535).
The judges said that regulation did not expressly provide that passengers whose flights are delayed also have such a right.
They were dealing with cases referred from German and Austrian courts in which passengers claimed compensation after facing delays.
Rochelle Turner from Which? Holiday said: "This is great news for air passengers.
"We hear all too often of people who are delayed for hours at the airport, often without any information about when their flight will finally leave, and are then offered no compensation.
"This judgment means that consumers will now be compensated properly for long and often frustrating delays, and not just when the airline takes the decision to cancel a flight."
Global airline passenger consumer group Flyersrights.org president Kate Hanni described the decision as "an important step forward in creating a legal acknowledgment that the rights of victims, abused and ignored by the big airlines for far too long, will be given priority over the bloodless corporations that have simply taken it for granted that they engage in any behaviour, no matter how injurious it is to consumers, without fearing repercussion".
She added: "Imagine being stuffed like a sardine in a hot metal tube, without working toilets, food or water or access to medicines for over three hours, with no rights?"
Hendrik Noorderhaven of EU Claim, FlyersRights.org European counterpart, said: "This is a historic decision for airline passengers in the EU, and in particular, any passengers travelling to the EU who suffer through anything greater than a three hour delay.
"They will now be reimbursed for this suffering with cash."
*What are passengers currently entitled to?
* Two free phone calls, faxes or e-mails; and
* free meals and refreshments appropriate to the delay
* free hotel accommodation and hotel transfers if an overnight stay is required
* If the delay lasts for five hours or more, you can choose not to travel and get a refund of your ticket cost.
When you're entitled to it:
* When a flight under 932 miles (for example, London to Venice) is delayed for more than two hours.
* When a flight within the EU that is more than 932 miles (for example, London to Athens) is delayed for more than 3 hours.
* When a flight that isn't within the EU but is between 932 and 2,174 miles is delayed by more than 3 hours.
* When any other flight is delayed for more than four hours.
(Source Which? Holiday)
With permission from Travelmole
Consumer groups have hailed as ‘historic' a European decision to requiring airlines to compensate travellers for long flight delays.
The ruling will require airlines in the European Union to compensate victims of mass delays for which they are responsible.
Passengers who are forced to wait three hours or more will be compensated 600 euros, the same as if their flight had been cancelled, the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg decided yesterday.
Airlines will be required not to cancel a flight unless it fits strict criteria set down in the new law.
The ruling stated: "Passengers on a flight which is cancelled at short notice have a right to compensation, even when they are re-routed by the airline on another flight, if they lose three hours or more in relation to the duration originally planned."
The judges said that a technical problem with an aircraft could not be regarded as an "extraordinary circumstance", unless the problem stemmed from events which "by their nature or origin are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control".
The ruling came in a judgment clarifying a five-year-old EU regulation which grants flat-rate compensation for cancelled flights of between 250 euros and 600 euros (£223 to £535).
The judges said that regulation did not expressly provide that passengers whose flights are delayed also have such a right.
They were dealing with cases referred from German and Austrian courts in which passengers claimed compensation after facing delays.
Rochelle Turner from Which? Holiday said: "This is great news for air passengers.
"We hear all too often of people who are delayed for hours at the airport, often without any information about when their flight will finally leave, and are then offered no compensation.
"This judgment means that consumers will now be compensated properly for long and often frustrating delays, and not just when the airline takes the decision to cancel a flight."
Global airline passenger consumer group Flyersrights.org president Kate Hanni described the decision as "an important step forward in creating a legal acknowledgment that the rights of victims, abused and ignored by the big airlines for far too long, will be given priority over the bloodless corporations that have simply taken it for granted that they engage in any behaviour, no matter how injurious it is to consumers, without fearing repercussion".
She added: "Imagine being stuffed like a sardine in a hot metal tube, without working toilets, food or water or access to medicines for over three hours, with no rights?"
Hendrik Noorderhaven of EU Claim, FlyersRights.org European counterpart, said: "This is a historic decision for airline passengers in the EU, and in particular, any passengers travelling to the EU who suffer through anything greater than a three hour delay.
"They will now be reimbursed for this suffering with cash."
*What are passengers currently entitled to?
* Two free phone calls, faxes or e-mails; and
* free meals and refreshments appropriate to the delay
* free hotel accommodation and hotel transfers if an overnight stay is required
* If the delay lasts for five hours or more, you can choose not to travel and get a refund of your ticket cost.
When you're entitled to it:
* When a flight under 932 miles (for example, London to Venice) is delayed for more than two hours.
* When a flight within the EU that is more than 932 miles (for example, London to Athens) is delayed for more than 3 hours.
* When a flight that isn't within the EU but is between 932 and 2,174 miles is delayed by more than 3 hours.
* When any other flight is delayed for more than four hours.
(Source Which? Holiday)
With permission from Travelmole
You have rights, EC reminds passengers
Air and rail passengers are to be made more aware of their legal rights following the launch of a Europe-wide publicity campaign by the European Commission this week.
Posters spelling out the obligations of airlines and rail operators when things go wrong will be displayed in all airports and train stations in member states from this week.
The posters will make it clear what passengers should do if their flights are cancelled or delayed, their bags go missing or they are denied boarding.
Travellers will also have access to free leaflets and a website ( http://ec.europa.eu/passenger-rights) as part of the Your Passenger Rights At Hand campaign.
The launch of the two-year campaign follows the debacle during the ash crisis earlier this year many airlines tried to shirk their responsibilities to stranded passengers, forcing them to cough up their own accommodation costs.
The Commission is hoping to extend passenger rights to other forms of transport, such as ferries and coaches, by the end of this year.
With permission from Travelmole
Air and rail passengers are to be made more aware of their legal rights following the launch of a Europe-wide publicity campaign by the European Commission this week.
Posters spelling out the obligations of airlines and rail operators when things go wrong will be displayed in all airports and train stations in member states from this week.
The posters will make it clear what passengers should do if their flights are cancelled or delayed, their bags go missing or they are denied boarding.
Travellers will also have access to free leaflets and a website ( http://ec.europa.eu/passenger-rights) as part of the Your Passenger Rights At Hand campaign.
The launch of the two-year campaign follows the debacle during the ash crisis earlier this year many airlines tried to shirk their responsibilities to stranded passengers, forcing them to cough up their own accommodation costs.
The Commission is hoping to extend passenger rights to other forms of transport, such as ferries and coaches, by the end of this year.
With permission from Travelmole
Can someone clarify if my family and I are entitled to any form of compensation in the instance where our Thomas Cook flight from Dalaman to Aberdeen was delayed by 24 hours.
It was supposed to depart at 16.15 on 28 Jul, but did not depart until 16.15 the following day. They fed and watered us at 16.30 and at 22.30 on Jul 28, and shortly afterwards, announced that we would not be travelling home until the next day.
They arranged for everyone to be put up in hotels/apartments close to the airport, and the flight did eventually leave 24 hours after the original scheduled flight time.
Having looked at the regulations and some of the posts in this forum, I am uncertain whether or not I can claim compensation from Thomas Cook under EU Denied Boarding Regulation 261/2004
Thx
RJ
It was supposed to depart at 16.15 on 28 Jul, but did not depart until 16.15 the following day. They fed and watered us at 16.30 and at 22.30 on Jul 28, and shortly afterwards, announced that we would not be travelling home until the next day.
They arranged for everyone to be put up in hotels/apartments close to the airport, and the flight did eventually leave 24 hours after the original scheduled flight time.
Having looked at the regulations and some of the posts in this forum, I am uncertain whether or not I can claim compensation from Thomas Cook under EU Denied Boarding Regulation 261/2004
Thx
RJ
from what you have said you were not denied boarding but delayed for some reason [which you do not state] under the regulations as they stand the airline has fed/watered and even bedded you down during the delay, this is all they are required to do
wiz
wiz
The High Court in London has suspended the right of UK air passengers to claim compensation from airlines for flight delays.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10991631
Mods. Wasn't really sure where to post this!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10991631
Mods. Wasn't really sure where to post this!
Post a Reply
Please sign in or register an account to reply to this post.
Similar Topics
-
Flight delay
Posted by Hollandgirl4 in Flight Only / Airline and Airports
-
Flight delay
Posted by Madlappy in Flight Only / Airline and Airports
- flight delay
-
FLIGHT DELAY WITH TCD
Posted by michelle227 in Holiday Complaints
-
Flight delay
Posted by jimbouk in Holiday Complaints