EU 261 Claim

I've just read up on EU261 (on both the official EU website & the VS website) and it would appear that I am due €600 for the near 4 hour delay to the arrival of VS75 on Saturday.

The flight was over 3500km & arrived about 3h50m late. Reason was due to a technical fault / return to Manchester to get it fixed. The Courts have ruled that technical faults cannot be classed as "extraordinary circumstances" which was how the airlines used to wriggle out of paying.

Has anyone on here claimed EU261 from Virgin? If so, how is the best way to go about it as I will get the ball rolling from Orlando... or am I best to wait until my return to the UK?

The ruling did not exclude all technical faults from preventing EU261 applying which is what the airlines were saying. There is still scope for 'extraordinary circumstances' in the scheme.

There was a list on the CAA website of things which are agreed exclusions from an airline having to pay EU261 compensation. IIRC things happening in the air may be exempt.

I think there is a form on the VS website you can complete but if you wanted to start the ball rolling send an email to VS making it clear you want to initiate a claim for EU261 and the flight details etc.

This page on the VS website has all the details including a link to the claim form you need to send off: http://www.virgin-atlantic.com/gb/en/tr ... laims.html

The list of "extraordinary circumstances" (link below) doesn't appear to include technical problems unless the airline can prove they were caused by hidden manufacturing defects or in-flight damage during the preceding flight caused by a foreign object. http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/2211/Letterto ... chment.pdf

And here's the CAA's advice on claiming EU261 compensation for long haul flights. Note that it's only €600 if the delay was more than 4 hours. In your case it sounds like you'd only be eligible for €300. Still, better than nothing. http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid ... geid=15454

[mitchja]

That's the very form I filled in when I was delayed over 4 hours (again on a VS75 flight) due to faulty fuel relief value whilst still on the ground which prevented re-fueling back in 2013.

Isn't the delay also calculated on the aircraft's actual arrival time at it's destination as well and not the delayed departure time? We actually landed at MCO just over 4 hours late so I got the full €600.

I got the compensation no messing (well, after the second Jet2 court ruling anyway), before that, VS didn't want to know.

This is the list of exemptions (opens as a PDF)

Points 19-27 cover mechanical issues - some on land and some in the air.

This is the list of exemptions (opens as a PDF)

Points 19-27 cover mechanical issues - some on land and some in the air.

ISTBC but that list applied before the 2014 Jet2 ruling. Points 21-27 have now been removed - 21 being the salient one in kraken's case.

This is the updated list of extraordinary circumstances: http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/2211/Letterto ... chment.pdf

gumshoe you much have a better version of google than me !

I think you already know the reason for the delay but here it is in AvHerald just in case.

http://avherald.com/h?article=485a089f&opt=1

Incidentally how was the food? <edit> scrub that question I've just found your trip report

The time that matters is gate arrival and not wheels down. So it's the delay between schedule arrival and actual gate arrival.

Just an update - Virgin have paid my EU261 claim without any hassle / even questioning any of the info I put on the claim form (which was all true anyway).

Sadly, it was only €300 as we did arrive on stand in Orlando 5mins before the 4hr delay would have been triggered.

Now two thoughts... before takeoff on round 2 of VS75, our predicted arrival at Orlando was about 19:10 local, so 10mins into the 4hr delay period. We made up time - is there any chance the Captain was under "company orders" to fly slightly faster if possible?

No announcement was made about EU261 / no claim forms offered. Not hard to see why - I ended up with £220, so multiply this by 457 passengers onboard & the payout exceeds £100k. Had the delay been over 4hrs then it would have been a £200k hit (+ the cost of dumped fuel / additional landing+takeoff charges at MAN).

Call me a cynic, but I strongly suspect no announcement was made / claim forms offered to minimise the financial hit Virgin take. Any thoughts?

Simple damage limitation I suppose, so only those more tenacious / in the know pax will do something about it.

Some friends of ours were on a delayed BA LHR to MIA flight near the end of May; they boarded, waited over 2 hours, were turfed off and then boarded a different plane, so arrived over 5.5 hours late. The food was transferred between the planes and inedible...

All they got was a £5 snack voucher at LHR T5 and no mention to any passengers about the EC/261 compensation. I told them to claim, and they called BA on Monday; after 20 minutes on the phone they got €1200 in their bank accounts, so disgruntlement turned back to happiness. But they will fly VS next year after this! They missed the VA "touches" even in Y.

Just an update - Virgin have paid my EU261 claim without any hassle / even questioning any of the info I put on the claim form (which was all true anyway).

Sadly, it was only €300 as we did arrive on stand in Orlando 5mins before the 4hr delay would have been triggered.

Now two thoughts... before takeoff on round 2 of VS75, our predicted arrival at Orlando was about 19:10 local, so 10mins into the 4hr delay period. We made up time - is there any chance the Captain was under "company orders" to fly slightly faster if possible?

No announcement was made about EU261 / no claim forms offered. Not hard to see why - I ended up with £220, so multiply this by 457 passengers onboard & the payout exceeds £100k. Had the delay been over 4hrs then it would have been a £200k hit (+ the cost of dumped fuel / additional landing+takeoff charges at MAN).

Call me a cynic, but I strongly suspect no announcement was made / claim forms offered to minimise the financial hit Virgin take. Any thoughts?

Well done on the refund:) Without doubt the Captain would have been under company orders to fly faster, it is the companies choice and duty to reduce losses and I'm sure all crew of a certain level would be aware of this, not letting passengers know of EU261 is another thing, but again like being instructed by your insurers not to admit anything if you are involved in a road accident is how the world and business is today

There is very little and I'd say zero chance of the pilot been told to go faster just to try and avoid EU 261 kicking in.

Routes and speed would be dictated by air traffic control and landing gates and times by the airport. These would not care about EU 261 time limits and if an airline hit them or not,

Btw it is not landing time that matters but the time the doors open and pax leave time that matters.

With the greatest respect to tontybear, I do suspect the Captain was told to fly just that little bit faster. Maintain the required separation over the Atlantic, but get into US Airspace that bit faster.

Sure, US ATC could have screwed the plan up at any time (or the weather could). But if you knew your employer was about to take a potential additional £100k hit on a flight that had almost certainly already lost [a lot] of money, you'd give it a go as long as safety was not compromised.

Certainly on landing on 35R at Orlando, the braking and reverse thrust was very hard - could not get off the runway fast enough to backtrack, then cross the active takeoff runway 35L to get to stand. All the ground crew were waiting to get the jet bridge docked close on instantly. Of course, the delayed arrival / need for an expedited turnaround played a part here, but I have arrived in Orlando on VS in the past when we have sat waiting 10mins for a jet bridge driver to turn up (when VS75 is the first flight in).

I am not saying anything unsafe happened here - far from it, the return to Manchester proves that. I just can't help but think a few people in the background were saying "can we tweak this a little?" when VS75 was finally in the air 2nd time round. As stated above, US ATC or weather could have scuppered the plan, but if it works, £100k is a nice saving in EU261 payouts.

I say its unlikely that the pilot would be instructed to go faster, for the same reason that on the railways train drivers would not go faster to make up lost time to avoid paying Delay Repay - they have a "line speed" to keep to and can't necessarily go faster for safety reasons.

Admittedly EU261 is a lot lower than typical Delay Repay payments but its the same principle.

I'm sure all staff are encouraged to save Lost Customer Hours, so either directly or indirectly encouraged to minimise delays, not necessarily to save on EU261 claims though.

There is very little and I'd say zero chance of the pilot been told to go faster just to try and avoid EU 261 kicking in.

Routes and speed would be dictated by air traffic control and landing gates and times by the airport. These would not care about EU 261 time limits and if an airline hit them or not,

Btw it is not landing time that matters but the time the doors open and pax leave time that matters.

I think there are ways around that, especially if a company has multiple landings/departures from an airport.

I can give you 2x examples:-
I once had a flight back from ireland that flew back in 1/2 the time.
I can only think RyanAir needed the plane for another flight. Landed within 30mins on a scheduled 55min flight.

Flight back from Sofia, I was going to Manchester & Friends was going to Gatwick.
Our flight was due to take off before the Gatwick one, but there was a delay that had a knock on effect. We ended up getting delayed & the Gatwick one left on time. While we took off nearly 2 hours late, we landed at Manchester less than an hour late. Again, I can only think EasyJet needed their plane at Gatwick more than one at Manchester.

Planes can go faster... just burns a heck of a lot more fuel!

Got to agree with James, I'd be astonished if any employee, especially one as senior as a captain, wouldn't be aware of the potential costs involved in delays, and would take all safe "available" steps to reduce potential company losses.

David

Come on, let's be realistic. Some planes do / can cruise at different speeds to others. ATC do have a high level of control, but planes can "overtake" each other. Pilots can go "a little faster" if they want. Most planes cruise at the optimum balance of economy and speed.

It is different for short haul like EJ & Ryanair; their schedules always have a lot of padding to ensure on time arrivals. Most of the intra-Europe flights - for all airlines - have built in allowances for ATC & airport potential delays.

If a VS plane is seriously delayed, there is a good chance it will arrive at a time when the airport is less busy, and so may be able to land and exit the runway without some of the usual delays.

So bottom line; it is probably a combination of all these things coming into play. And I am sure VS might "suggest" that the captain expedites when he can to save the company money. And safety would never be compromised during this..

is there any chance the Captain was under "company orders" to fly slightly faster if possible?

A very high chance I would think.

Call me a cynic, but I strongly suspect no announcement was made / claim forms offered to minimise the financial hit Virgin take.

I would concur, so we are cynics together