EU261

Pretty darn impressed! Our VS44 was delayed returning from Vegas on Saturday night due to an engine part needing replacement. We ended up being three hours & fifteen minutes late into Gatwick. Lots of apologies from the Captain & crew but no mention of compensation. Submitted an EU261 claim on virginatlantic.com on Sunday afternoon. Today we've each received an email with a secure link for immediate transfer of €300 into our bank accounts!

Oh well done - that was quick.

That'll buy a lot of dog treats!

Pretty bad that VS didn't proactively inform passengers. They are supposed to!

Hi VegasCrazy. Quick question. I know someone who was this flight but flying on later in the day to Dublin as part of ex eu fare. This final flight wasn't affected by the delay of the vs44. Can they still claim? I think the answer is no?
Thanks

The rules of EC261/2004 say no, as it's arrival time at your final ticketed destination that counts. But VS told me over the phone if their flight's late they'll pay - and they did. So I'd get your friend to claim.

I fear I'm in for a battle claiming for another VS44 delay though, caused by a lightning strike. That's listed as one of the "extraordinary circumstances" that means they don't have to pay but there've been various court rulings to the contrary - trouble is none of them were binding and set a legal precedent.

Hi VegasCrazy. Quick question. I know someone who was this flight but flying on later in the day to Dublin as part of ex eu fare. This final flight wasn't affected by the delay of the vs44. Can they still claim? I think the answer is no?
Thanks

I was also on an ex-EU with final sector back to Brussels the following day (Monday). Clearly though this did not influence their decision to pay up.

Pretty bad that VS didn't proactively inform passengers. They are supposed to!

The regulation states:

Passengers should be fully informed of their rights in the
event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long
delay of flights, so that they can effectively exercise their
rights

On every delayed flight I can remember the announcement ends with something like, "any passenger needing additional assistance can contact a member of our ground staff."

I would imagine the lawyers would claim that EC261 paperwork was available from the ground staff if you had asked. The trick is knowing to ask

When my VS44 was delayed in March the ground agents at LAS proactively handed out "compensation and assistance" leaflets and delivered on their promise to update us every 30 minutes, even if there was no update. Didn't stop people moaning on Twitter about there being no information though!

Just to follow through on this, the funds (equivalent of €300) arrived in my account Wednesday night. That's just two working days from when I submitted the clam, very impressed. Not so impressed though that, other than an on board apology for the delay, no mention whatsoever was made to passengers about their rights in such situations so guess I'm in the minority of those who claimed.

For those thinking of claiming under EC261/2004, it's worth noting that if you ask for a bank transfer they pay the equivalent of 250/300/600 Euro (as the law requires). However if you ask for vouchers they pay 250/300/600 pounds, which is worth considerably more. Obviously the vouchers aren't of use to everybody, but you get a better rate of compensation if you take them.

Hi Vegas Crazy
Thanks for your info. My friend also claimed and they are paying up. Thanks for your help.

I fully agree that Virgin (& indeed all airlines) should proactively inform you of your right to compensation - but they deliberately don't to avoid a huge bill. A PA announcement saying "Everyone this delayed flight is now entitles to €300 - go to www.virginatlantic.co.uk to claim it" could lead to a bill of €135000 for Virgin if 450 passengers on a LGW/MAN config 747 all claimed.

The airlines clearly use the loophole that the ground staff would have told you about EU261 had you asked. Most people are just happy to have got to their destination & just want to get to their hotel / home asap. This was certainly the case when I was on VS75 that arrived 4hrs late at 7pm local time in Orlando (so most passengers thought it was midnight & they had been up early / with tired children etc). There was no hot food on this flight for PE or Y due to a return to Manchester to fix a fault (food had started to cook and had to be binned) - vouchers for hot food at Orlando airport were offered by ground staff on arrival, but they got few takers due to the delay / tired passengers.

I claimed EU261 and Virgin paid up in about 3 weeks - this was when you had to print + fill in a form and send it to an address in Luton. Good to see that Virgin have really streamlined the process and are now paying out within a few days.

As to the mention above of claiming for a delay caused by a lightning strike - can't see them paying on this one. Anything weather related is beyond the reasonable control of an airline.

As to the mention above of claiming for a delay caused by a lightning strike - can't see them paying on this one. Anything weather related is beyond the reasonable control of an airline.

Not according to a judge in Reading in January, who ruled against Monarch on the grounds that lightning strikes are an inherently normal part of an airline's operations and in no way "extraordinary circumstances". Snow in Dubai in July would be extraordinary. Lightning over the Atlantic is not.

As to the mention above of claiming for a delay caused by a lightning strike - can't see them paying on this one. Anything weather related is beyond the reasonable control of an airline.

Not according to a judge in Reading in January, who ruled against Monarch on the grounds that lightning strikes are an inherently normal part of an airline's operations and in no way "extraordinary circumstances". Snow in Dubai in July would be extraordinary. Lightning over the Atlantic is not.

I respectfully stand corrected then. I would have thought that anything weather related was counted as "extraordinary circumstances". Whilst lightening strikes do happen, they are completely beyond the control of the airline.

I used to work at a UK Theme Park years ago - the only time we could be specific about the cause of a ride breakdown / stoppage was if it was weather related. The punters could moan all they wanted at Guest Services - there is nothing anyone can do to control the weather.

As to the mention above of claiming for a delay caused by a lightning strike - can't see them paying on this one. Anything weather related is beyond the reasonable control of an airline.

Not according to a judge in Reading in January, who ruled against Monarch on the grounds that lightning strikes are an inherently normal part of an airline's operations and in no way "extraordinary circumstances". Snow in Dubai in July would be extraordinary. Lightning over the Atlantic is not.

I respectfully stand corrected then. I would have thought that anything weather related was counted as "extraordinary circumstances". Whilst lightening strikes do happen, they are completely beyond the control of the airline.

I used to work at a UK Theme Park years ago - the only time we could be specific about the cause of a ride breakdown / stoppage was if it was weather related. The punters could moan all they wanted at Guest Services - there is nothing anyone can do to control the weather.

depends on the weather. While it may operate in a rain shower, it would not if it was heavy rain & caused a sudden safety concern.
As for EU261.... Still trying to get my 400 Euros x 22 passengers from Polish Outfit EnterAir.
Whole different can of worms when the airline has no UK presence. Even the big firms who come up first on google will not take on the case because of the non UK presence

Erm.. thats my rant over

You should contact the Polish National Enforcement Body for EU 261 - likely their equivalent of the CAA.

So how do you stand if, say, you book an ex-UK flight in February and LHR / LGW are all but shut due to snow (as has happened in the past)? Can the airline claim you should have factored this risk in when booking a flight in February & claim extraordinary circumstances?

Ditto booking a flight to Orlando in July / August when afternoon storms are quite common & Orlando Airport shuts. Inbound flights normally divert to Jacksonville or Daytona, before making the short hop to Orlando once the storm has passed (admittedly - not normally long enough to trigger an EU261 payout) but if it was, could the airline claim this is a feature of the weather in Florida at that time of year, so it's to be expected?

Sounds like the airlines hold their hands up to EU261 when they know they have no wriggle-room to avoid a payout, but think of any excuse under the sun when there is the slightest element of doubt (in the hope a "sorry, but no" response will put a lot of claimants off).

You should contact the Polish National Enforcement Body for EU 261 - likely their equivalent of the CAA.

well I have contacted the CAA
Enter want us to prove we was on the flight (Basically they are dragging it out)
only 4 of us kept our boarding pass - however Swissport confirm they have the manifest & will keep me a copy that proves we all checked in. CAA said it will/can take 10 weeks.
I am away early next week to Bordeaux for the Wales game, so may look at going directly to the polish route on my return.

Little Flybe cancelled by INV - LCY flight way back in January 2015 - they handed out the EU regulations, and arranged hotel accommodation and dinner for everyone. Didn't need to ask.

If your flight is delayed or cancelled because the departure or arrival airport is closed due to bad weather then EC261/2004 definitely wouldn't apply as clearly that is completely beyond the airline's control.

My claim involves a delay caused by lightning affecting the aircraft on the inbound flight. VS, not surprisingly, won't pay up but my argument is that lightning is such a common occurrence it should be factored into airlines' routine planning, not classed as an "extraordinary circumstance". Which is exactly what one judge ruled earlier this year.