EU Regulation 261/2004 Update

Am 26.03.2012 12:43, schrieb Tom P:
[snip]
However, in the final analysis, that doesn't alter the fact that this
was a delay and not a cancellation, and different rules apply.

No, the European Court has ruled that for delays of more than 3 hours
the same rules apply. Moreover at least german courts ruled that
technical problems are no excuse in general. The airline has to proove
that it really was "unforeseeable", otherwise it's regarded as lack of
maintainance.
As i already wrote there are now companies that make business of sueing
airlines. They win these cases hands down.

Josef

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 12:34:15 +0200, Tom P wrote:

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.

Last week KLM/AF lost a Dutch high court action to avoid paying
compensation to travellers inconvenienced by the Icelandic volcano.

Any idea where I can read details of this case?

On 03/27/2012 11:06 AM, Martin wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 02:28:33 +0100,
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 12:34:15 +0200, Tom wrote:

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.

Last week KLM/AF lost a Dutch high court action to avoid paying
compensation to travellers inconvenienced by the Icelandic volcano.

Any idea where I can read details of this case?


In the Dutch press.

It's the kind of thing that makes Europe such a wonderful place to
operate for the (fill in the blanks).

see - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule

quote:
"The use of this technique is meant to empower the sovereign to control
subjects, populations, or factions of different interests, who
collectively might be able to oppose his rule."

On 03/28/2012 12:04 AM, Martin wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 23:45:59 +0200, Tom wrote:

On 03/27/2012 11:06 AM, Martin wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 02:28:33 +0100,
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 12:34:15 +0200, Tom wrote:

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.

Last week KLM/AF lost a Dutch high court action to avoid paying
compensation to travellers inconvenienced by the Icelandic volcano.

Any idea where I can read details of this case?


In the Dutch press.

It's the kind of thing that makes Europe such a wonderful place to
operate for the (fill in the blanks).

see - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule

quote:
"The use of this technique is meant to empower the sovereign to control
subjects, populations, or factions of different interests, who
collectively might be able to oppose his rule."


Not really. I assume that KLM's T&Cs define where court cases are to
be held.

My line of thought was that the outcome of a court case in one EU
country might not necessarily give rise to precedent in another country.