V-Flyer

Well this is one for debate, will this now push up ticket prices on low costs airline or any airline for that matter ?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tance.html

The way it reads to me, the ruling is not final until the Supreme Court has its say.

true, but on the One Show, it said that Jet 2 had been refused the right to appeal to the Supreme Court but they were anyway. Jet 2 are saying that the wiring issue was could not have been prevented by maintenance or a prior inspection "
If the Supreme court rules in his favour and the ruling stands,then that will open the floodgates.

Either way no one wins here, I suspect this guy has paid out more in legal fees than he is due to be compensated, and the airline suffers bad publicity

Well I think I will be looking into my claim from last year again covered in the following thread

forum/index.php?f=4&t=282612&start=20&rb_v=viewtopic

It's worth a try Dom. Did you ever get your money back for the hotel, aside from the compensation?

Bretty wrote:It's worth a try Dom. Did you ever get your money back for the hotel, aside from the compensation?

Hi Bretty,

I did receive a refund for the night in the Hyatt from VS that came pretty quickly, my travel insurance also coughed up for the night along with a further £80 for my inconvenience.

I seem to remember having a tidy up and ditching all the relevant paperwork for my EU claim though.
I'll get onto it upon my return.

Dominic

Morning all,

I have found copies of the letter Virgin sent to me declining my claim for compensation under EC 261 which contain my previous claim reference, would it be better to try and start a new claim or contact Virgin with my original claim reference asking them to reconsider following on from the Huzar VS Jet2 ruling and their own decision to pay out eventually for flight VS16 from MCO-LGW in October 2012.
http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/Articles/ ... uling.html

The VS website now contains reference to the Huzar VS Jet2 ruling
http://www.virgin-atlantic.com/gb/en/tr ... laims.html

Advice appreciated, thanks
Dominic

If it were me Dom I'd continue from where you left off rather than start a new claim.

I agree with Brettys' advice - carry on where you left off with the VS complaint.

TBH, I can see this ruling really opening the floodgates against the airlines when things have gone wrong in the past. For years many EU airlines have wriggled round the "extraordinary circumstances" rule.

Extraordinary circumstances should only = things that normal maintenance / daily checks [as recommended by the aircraft manufacturer] should not have picked up.

This does look like a repeat of the bank overdraft charge scandal in the UK [I hasten to add, I was not a "victim" of it]. But as soon as the Courts ruled, the banks paid all the outstanding claims pronto to avoid potentially heavier penalties.

Thanks,

I have just sent Virgin the following letter,

"Dear Virgin Atlantic

I write to you with regards claim reference 1474922/CUSCRW/2 and the fact that you stated that the “Faulty Wiring Harness” fell into the “exceptional circumstances” bracket of the EU 261/2004.

Following the ruling in the Huzar Vs Jet2 case and your recent decision to award compensation to the passengers delayed by the cancellation of flight VS16 from MCO-LGW on 26th October 2012 due to a “Faulty Wiring Harness” I ask you to reconsider my claim and award me the €600 I am entitled to.

Regards"

I'll keep you all updated.

Dominic

Hope it works out for you Dom

Still waiting,

VS acknowledged receipt of my claim back in July stating "we hope to be able to respond to you in the next 12-16 weeks"

I have just seen this on the VS website, it sounds like the airlines are appealing the ruling so we have to just sit and wait, maybe I'll hear something by Christmas.

http://www.virgin-atlantic.com/gb/en/tr ... laims.html

BA paid out for my parents flight cancellation.

VS are fobbing people off with this 'wait for the ruling' thing, nothing in law says that claims should be held whilst this is sorted out.

If I was you I'd do MCOL.

BA are also refusing to pay claims on the same basis ( i.e. the Supreme Court hasn't ruled yet) BUT it does appear that they are paying if people take them down the Money Claim On Line process.

People on Flyer Talk just report that BA have paid up after they have initiated MCOL but not on what basis but I'm assuming on an ex-gratia basis with amounts suspiciously close to the EU 261 payment levels.

Hull - the decision that should be made by Christmas (though the SC website see below says 'early November') is if the SC will grant Jet2 (and Thompson in a similar case) a full hearing. If they do it will be many months before they would make a final ruling.

Supreme Court - Jet2 c Huzar

Just seen this

Supreme Court refuses appeal hearing

Essentially airlines HAVE to pay compensation even for minor technical problems - as long as the delay is longer than a certain time period.

I predict that, if they comply, the ruling will send certain airlines either to the wall, and/or will result in them encouraging pilots to fly with 'minor problems' that would otherwise have been fixed on the ground before take off. n(


Nick

Nottingham Nick wrote:I predict that, if they comply, the ruling will send certain airlines either to the wall, and/or will result in them encouraging pilots to fly with 'minor problems' that would otherwise have been fixed on the ground before take off. n(

Nick

I fear such consequences as well Nick ... airlines such as VS or BA do not intentionally want to delay flights and passengers through poor maintenance or inadequate daily line checking, I am certain of that. From a public impression of safety ( a perspective which is the single most damaging impression people can have of any airline) through to a financial perspective (delays cost money all over the shop, and have knock ons too), this is not part any airline's modus operandi. I accept that depositing passengers at airports far from destinations then flying off to maintain a schedule elsewhere (a la certain LCC stories in the past) is completely out of order, as well as certain other behaviours that airlines have exhibited in the past. And I can accept that penalizing airlines for such behaviour is right, and compensating the passengers as a consequence. However this strikes me as another ruling that has swung the pendulum to far across the EU, and the consequential damage to the industry could be large.

As I've said before, I can see fares rising to offset the payments and frankly, anyone who thinks that won't happen is deluding themselves.

As Nick says, minor problems that are non-safety critical won't get fixed, especially on down route turnarounds. IFE not working? That can wait. Toilet out of service?There are plenty more.

I can also see airlines getting stricter on late boarders. One passenger missing? Too bad.

As Slinky says, airlines don't intentionally delay flights but to me, this is just another rung in the Compensation Culture ladder.




i

What may surprise many is that in the original regulation there is NO mention of compensation for delays just for the duty of care and that it was the European Court of Justice that ruled that compensation should be paid for delays.

See Article 6 in the original text

If the proposed revisions that are currently under discussion in the Commission, Parliament and Council are approved the right to compensation for delays is recognised in the regulation but the time scales are much longer than at present before compensation is due i.e. 12 hours for a flight >3,500 KM (currently 4) and 5 hours for an intra EU flight (currently 2)

I'm guessing the airlines are lobbying hard to have that approved.

So having a look at this, prompted by Tontybear last post.

It seems like even if people do go back to continue claims from the past, the length of the delay experienced has been extended making a lot of those claims void and shutting the door permanently ?|
So perhaps the flood gates opening yes, but a larger brick-wall for a majority of the claims.

As for the fare rises, do they not grab any chance to put an extra £40-£50 on a ticket?? Just thinking Fuel Surcharges, baggage fees, etc, etc, etc. I am sure if it was not this, it would be something else.
Not sure I agree with Nick (sorry Nick) and small faults will be flown, we have to remember the pilots are human, they would not fly themselves in to situation which could harm them, their crew or their pax, no matter what the business pressures.

No, and apologies if I have confused anyone, but until the proposed changes have been approved the existing time frames apply so 4 hours on a TATL for example or 2 for an intra EU one.

Those changes won't be retrospective either.

As to extra on fares I understand that Ryanair include £2 in each ticket towards their costs of EU261 claims.

I think a major part of the problem was that airlines just couldn't be bothered to inform people about delays, hand out water/refreshments, and basically told people "tough, suck it up". So, they have been hit with a very large stick.

Serves 'em right really.

They treat customers as they please when they change people's schedules months in advance, causing grief with people's holiday plans so I am glad to see them getting a bit back.

clarkeysntfc wrote:I am glad to see them getting a bit back.

Except you can be sure the airlines will take steps to ensure they don't lose out of this. We'll all end up paying more for our tickets.

It's the front page story in the Daily Mail today so there'll no doubt be a flood of claims.

I still don't think much will change.

Still not forgiven VS over the 4+hr delay on the VS75 last year leaving MAN. That was a 4+hr delay sat on the aircraft at the gate gate as well due to a faulty fuel relief valve being stuck in the closed position, meaning VS could not re-fual the aircraft.

The duty of care thing is rubbish as well as VS would not allow anyone to get off and all VS did was serve the main meal service whilst still on the ground at MAN so that meant no meal during the actual flight once we finally took off.

The CAA agreed with VS, in that the delay was due to extraordinary circumstances and so no compensation was payable !