If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
EU Regulation 261/2004 Update
Regarding my recent thread on 02/02, a character called 'Martin' provided
some advice by Which, which I followed, and the airline have replied... I have replaced identifying information with XXXXX, but as it is not really relevent to understanding the issues, you will get my gist. **************** "Dear Mr. XXXXXXXXX, Thank you for contacting our Customer Relations Department. Please accept our sincere apology for the inconvenience caused by the delay of your flight. With regards to your claim we would like to draw your attention that the flight XXXXXXX on XX January was departed with a 6-hour and 47-minute delay due to technical issues (double wheel replacement). This flight delay was an unpreventable, unforeseeable yet serious technical shortcoming that could not be detected during the regular maintenance sessions, and required immediate in-depth assessment and repair. Furthermore please be informed that our company does not agree to the concept that passengers with delayed flight should be treated equally with those whose flight was cancelled, as this is not in any way implied by the operative EC Regulation 261/2004: "We agree with two of the three rulings of the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the joined cases C-402/07 and C-432/07 dated 19 November 2009. The third ruling, according to which passengers whose flights are delayed more than three hours not caused by extraordinary circumstances shall be treated as passengers whose flights are cancelled regarding the compensation, is, according to our view, the misinterpretation of the Regulation 261/2004, since the Regulation does not suggest it in any way. The wording of the Regulation reflects the intents of the European Commission as the legislative body: the compensation set out in Article 7 is only due to the passengers whose flights are cancelled (if the reason of the cancellation is not an extraordinary circumstance), and not to passengers whose flights are delayed - irrespectively of the reason and the length of the delay." We would like to inform you that according to the operative EC regulation and our General Conditions of Carriage, in case of a flight delay we are willing to reimburse your expenses occured directly due to the delay such as meals, refreshments and two brief telephone calls can be reimbursed in reasonable relation to the waiting time upon reception of supplementing invoices. As for the additional expenses, we kindly ask you to forward all related invoices, as an attachment to your reply, so that we can determine a possible compensation and please send us the further information: - IBAN - swift code/BIC - account holde's name - full name of the bank - account currency. Again, please accept our deepest apologies for the inconvenience and disappointment caused. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best regards, XXXXX XXXXX Customer Relations Department" ********* I don't have any expenses that I would have kept receipts for, they provided one £4 voucher per person for the entire duration, and given the airport prices, this was enough for a coffee and a chocolate bar. I paid a few quid in cash for food, but didn't keep the receipts. And at the destination late night taxis when all the city bus transport has stopped running, european drivers inflating the fare for unfamiliar foreigners to god knows how much more than we would have paid if travelling by bus. Still, if 261/2004 says I'm entitled to 400 euro per person, I'd like very much to get it. We effectively lost a whole day of the holiday, given we were expecting to land in early afternoon, we ended up at our destination well after the close of business of everything and had to cancel our plans for the whole day. There is no direct monetary loss, more like it is the loss of your holiday time that you can't get back as your itinerary dates are fixed. Additional advice on how to proceed would be appreciated. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
EU Regulation 261/2004 Update
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
EU Regulation 261/2004 Update
On 03/20/2012 09:14 PM, Jake wrote:
Regarding my recent thread on 02/02, a character called 'Martin' provided some advice by Which, which I followed, and the airline have replied... I have replaced identifying information with XXXXX, but as it is not really relevent to understanding the issues, you will get my gist. **************** "Dear Mr. XXXXXXXXX, Thank you for contacting our Customer Relations Department. Please accept our sincere apology for the inconvenience caused by the delay of your flight. With regards to your claim we would like to draw your attention that the flight XXXXXXX on XX January was departed with a 6-hour and 47-minute delay due to technical issues (double wheel replacement). This flight delay was an unpreventable, unforeseeable yet serious technical shortcoming that could not be detected during the regular maintenance sessions, and required immediate in-depth assessment and repair. Furthermore please be informed that our company does not agree to the concept that passengers with delayed flight should be treated equally with those whose flight was cancelled, as this is not in any way implied by the operative EC Regulation 261/2004: "We agree with two of the three rulings of the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the joined cases C-402/07 and C-432/07 dated 19 November 2009. The third ruling, according to which passengers whose flights are delayed more than three hours not caused by extraordinary circumstances shall be treated as passengers whose flights are cancelled regarding the compensation, is, according to our view, the misinterpretation of the Regulation 261/2004, since the Regulation does not suggest it in any way. The wording of the Regulation reflects the intents of the European Commission as the legislative body: the compensation set out in Article 7 is only due to the passengers whose flights are cancelled (if the reason of the cancellation is not an extraordinary circumstance), and not to passengers whose flights are delayed - irrespectively of the reason and the length of the delay." We would like to inform you that according to the operative EC regulation and our General Conditions of Carriage, in case of a flight delay we are willing to reimburse your expenses occured directly due to the delay such as meals, refreshments and two brief telephone calls can be reimbursed in reasonable relation to the waiting time upon reception of supplementing invoices. As for the additional expenses, we kindly ask you to forward all related invoices, as an attachment to your reply, so that we can determine a possible compensation and please send us the further information: - IBAN - swift code/BIC - account holde's name - full name of the bank - account currency. Again, please accept our deepest apologies for the inconvenience and disappointment caused. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best regards, XXXXX XXXXX Customer Relations Department" ********* I don't have any expenses that I would have kept receipts for, they provided one £4 voucher per person for the entire duration, and given the airport prices, this was enough for a coffee and a chocolate bar. I paid a few quid in cash for food, but didn't keep the receipts. And at the destination late night taxis when all the city bus transport has stopped running, european drivers inflating the fare for unfamiliar foreigners to god knows how much more than we would have paid if travelling by bus. Still, if 261/2004 says I'm entitled to 400 euro per person, I'd like very much to get it. We effectively lost a whole day of the holiday, given we were expecting to land in early afternoon, we ended up at our destination well after the close of business of everything and had to cancel our plans for the whole day. There is no direct monetary loss, more like it is the loss of your holiday time that you can't get back as your itinerary dates are fixed. Additional advice on how to proceed would be appreciated. Unfortunately, it would appear that 261/2004 is worded in such a way that you are not entitled to compensation. The text is here - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...01:0007:EN:PDF If I read this correctly, the situation is that you were subject to an unforseeable delay. Under Article 6 it says - "1. When an operating air carrier reasonably expects a flight to be delayed beyond its scheduled time of departu . . . " However, the air carrier apparently did not expect the flight to be delayed - it was unforseeable. Then, even if the air carrier did reasonably expect the delay, it doesn't help you any further, because Article 6 then stipulates that Articles 8 (reimbursement) or 9 (Right to care) apply. It looks like you could make a valid claim under 9(1)(c) for the additional costs involved for the taxi rides to the hotel. Compensation, in particular the €400 compensation is regulated by a completely different Article 7 - which only applies in the event of cancellations, and that is exactly what the airline is saying in their letter. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
EU Regulation 261/2004 Update
Yes irwell, **** ups is your trade, we know.
"Irwell" a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion : ... Runge is now in the Air Traffic Control, expect delays and French ****-ups. On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 21:43:27 +0100, Runge 132 wrote: rec.travel.air "Jake" a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion : ... |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
EU Regulation 261/2004 Update
Am 20.03.2012 21:14, schrieb Jake:
[snip] Additional advice on how to proceed would be appreciated. That's their standard procedure. You won't see money until you sue them. In Germany there are no even companies, which sue airlines on their own risk for a commission (about 25%). Like: http://fairplane.net http://www.flightright.de/ Don't know, if they can sue for non germans. Josef |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
EU Regulation 261/2004 Update
"Jake" wrote in message ... Additional advice on how to proceed would be appreciated. You write back to them reminding them that an EU court has decided that replacing some broken part of a plane "on the tarmac" is not an unforeseeable circumstance but one that HAS been created by insufficient maintenance during the normal schedule, even if they think otherwise. tim .. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
EU Regulation 261/2004 Update
"Tom P" wrote in message ... On 03/20/2012 09:14 PM, Jake wrote: Unfortunately, it would appear that 261/2004 is worded in such a way that you are not entitled to compensation. The text is here - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...01:0007:EN:PDF If I read this correctly, the situation is that you were subject to an unforseeable delay. Under Article 6 it says - "1. When an operating air carrier reasonably expects a flight to be delayed beyond its scheduled time of departu . . . " However, the air carrier apparently did not expect the flight to be delayed - it was unforseeable. An EU court has ruled that this particular definition of "unforeseeable" by airlines is incorrect. tim |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
EU Regulation 261/2004 Update
On 03/24/2012 09:38 AM, tim.... wrote:
"Tom wrote in message ... On 03/20/2012 09:14 PM, Jake wrote: Unfortunately, it would appear that 261/2004 is worded in such a way that you are not entitled to compensation. The text is here - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...01:0007:EN:PDF If I read this correctly, the situation is that you were subject to an unforseeable delay. Under Article 6 it says - "1. When an operating air carrier reasonably expects a flight to be delayed beyond its scheduled time of departu . . . " However, the air carrier apparently did not expect the flight to be delayed - it was unforseeable. An EU court has ruled that this particular definition of "unforeseeable" by airlines is incorrect. tim Indeed, the wording of this clause of the regulation is idiotic. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
EU Regulation 261/2004 Update
On 03/24/2012 09:37 AM, tim.... wrote:
wrote in message ... Additional advice on how to proceed would be appreciated. You write back to them reminding them that an EU court has decided that replacing some broken part of a plane "on the tarmac" is not an unforeseeable circumstance but one that HAS been created by insufficient maintenance during the normal schedule, even if they think otherwise. tim . You don't really know what was the cause of the wheel damage - maybe the plane hit the ground too hard on the previous landing or had a brake overheat, or tire damage, so may may well have been unforeseeable. However, in the final analysis, that doesn't alter the fact that this was a delay and not a cancellation, and different rules apply. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cut-Throat Competition --- De-Regulation Is Good (?) | Robert Cohen | Air travel | 8 | March 29th, 2006 08:16 AM |
125cc Motorcycles in France class B + A1 regulation? | Lee | Europe | 0 | January 3rd, 2005 02:08 PM |
Questions on America West Baggage regulation | Peng Yu | Air travel | 1 | August 6th, 2004 04:57 PM |
Cruise Tax & Regulation Initiative Fails! | Ray Goldenberg | Cruises | 13 | January 17th, 2004 06:28 PM |
!!! GGC 2004 UPDATE !!!!!! | Cruising Chrissy | Cruises | 8 | January 6th, 2004 02:26 AM |