V-Flyer

Sorry if this has been posted elsewhere but thought it would be worth knowing the European Court of Justice ruling today (17th September 2015):

Delayed airline passengers across Europe stand to gain millions of pounds in compensation following a key flight delay ruling today.

The European Court of Justice ruled in favour of passengers in a case involving KLM.

The court in Luxembourg decided that ‘a technical problem’ is not one of the extraordinary circumstances that airlines can use as a valid defence against paying flight delay compensation.

It follows a UK Supreme Court ruling last October that ‘technical issues’ are not extraordinary circumstances under flight delay Regulation EC 261/2004, in the landmark case of Huzar v Jet2.com.

That case unlocked £750 million in flight delay compensation for passengers in England and Wales.


But KLM has been arguing that technical issues that arise ‘spontaneously’ - as opposed to being discovered during routine maintenance - should be a valid excuse against paying out.



If the Dutch carrier had won, the vast majority of technical issues might no longer have been claimable throughout Europe because the ECJ is a higher authority than the Supreme Court.


EC 261/2004 entitles passengers to up to €600 if they are delayed by three hours or more as long as they were departing the EU or arriving in the EU on board an EU airline.

The only defence an airline has against paying compensation is when the delay was caused by an ‘extraordinary circumstance’.



The regulation does not give a definition of extraordinary circumstances, which has led to a series of lengthy court battles over the last decade.

Van der Lans v KLM is now one of the highest rulings on the issue of technical problems and is binding on all European courts.

Flight delay lawyer for Bott & Co solicitors, Kevin Clarke, who acted on behalf of Ronald Huzar in Huzar v Jet2.com, said:
“The vast majority of technical defects are spontaneous and unpredictable; that is the nature of air travel.

“If there are any signs whatsoever that a part on a plane is on the verge of breaking, it is automatically replaced.


“On that basis, if KLM had won, the vast majority of technical problems might have been classed as extraordinary circumstances.


“Bott & Co brought clarity to the law when we won the case of Huzar v Jet2. Technical issues are not extraordinary; they are claimable.

“The fact that the same issue has had to go to the ECJ despite the Supreme Court Ruling shows the lengths the airline industry will go to to avoid paying out on valid claims.

“Fortunately the courts have once again ruled in favour of consumers – we’re delighted with this outcome."

A judge at Liverpool County Court ruled in February that Jet2, Thomas Cook, Ryanair, Flybe and Wizz Air could not put flight delay claims on hold to await the outcome of the Van der Lans v KLM case.

Ryanair was granted permission to appeal the decision and has been putting claims on hold pending today’s outcome.




About 15,000 Bott & Co clients alone stand to be benefit from the KLM ruling, totalling more than £4.5 million in compensation.

British Air Transport Association chief executive, Nathan Stower, said: “The vast majority of flights depart and arrive on time but we support the principle of passenger protection when things go wrong.

“Regulation helps to ensure minimum standards of care and compensation, but the rules should be clear, unambiguous and proportionate.

“Today’s judgment is the latest in a long line of cases heard by courts in this country and across Europe which shows that the current regulation fails these tests. This is because it was badly drafted, leaving it open to wide interpretation and causing considerable legal uncertainty and confusion which has not been good for passengers or airlines.

Adeline Noorderhaven, manager of EUclaim UK, said: “Extraordinary circumstances has been an airline’s only defence against paying out flight delay compensation.

“It really is time that airlines adhered to EC Regulation 261/2004 and stopped trying to wriggle out of paying air passengers compensation for the inconvenience of their delay.

“As an estimate the backlog in compensation pay outs could be in the region of €400 million per year.”

http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/Articles/2015/09/17/56639/european+court+of+justice+rules+in+favour+of+delayed+passengers+in+klm+case.html

I am quite fearful where all this will lead to re flight prices.
While I recently had a delay long enough to financially cause me an issue (missed my pre-paid train & had to fork out £270 for new tickets), you do have to wonder the long term effect.

Think of a bigger plane having 500+ people & a delay that is going to cost them £400 per person.
Potentially that could cost the company £200,000

RyanAir already have a policy of adding a small amount to each booking for this, but the wider the net comes to claim, the more the prices will go up. You got people flying wizz air, paying £70 return & then being entitled to compensation for more than their flight ticket.

Will we get to the point where we can't fly direct long distance, because of the punitive compensation makes it non-viable if the plane is delayed. Meaning we all fly to the first airport outside the EU & then fly on from there, to minimise the compensation amounts.

I don't think it will get to the stage where prices become prohibitively expensive. All airlines will have access to their historical data on flight delays & the associated causes. They will just work out the likely financial hit they may take each year & then factor this into the case of the "surcharges" they put on all the tickets they expect to sell that year.

A bit like Ryanair with the Wheelchair Surcharge. When they lost a court case & were told they [Ryanair] had to pay the airports for wheelchair use, they put a levy of 50p on all tickets - even though the number of passengers on each flight needing a wheelchair is low.

The big EU261/2004 con is the way the airlines conveniently keep quiet about your rights - clearly in order to minimise claims. I was delayed for a shade under 4hrs on VS75 in May (technical problem + return to Manchester) & no mention was made of our rights. Claimed via the form on the VS website & they coughed up £220 without any questions. I think most of the passengers - everyone not in Upper Class - who got no hot food on the flight were just grateful for the $20 food vouchers on arrival in Orlando to get hot food at the airport. Shame the flight was not 5mins later TBH - would have been over 4hrs then, so £440 (€600).

them 50p on a 200 seater plane adds up to £100 a trip for Ryanair.

As for the compensation, there can be a knock on effect if it flies to destination, drops off & returns to where it left.
Its not always possible to get a replacement plane in time & if the outbound plane is delayed, then that could be 2 delays. 2 sets of compensation.
on a 500 seater delayed flight both ways.. worse case scenario thats 1000 passengers entitled to €600 compensation.
Dress it up as much as you like, but €600,000 is a lot of money to any company. Especially to someone like VA who struggle to break even

Got to be the worst possibly news for regular flyers