Det är ganska lönlöst... Du sa själv varför.....  skrev:I och med snöovädret som drabbade USAs öskkust förra helgen så blev jag 24 timmar sen hem från Washington (Avresa 25/1 istället för den 24/1). SAS vill inte ersätta förseningen med €600 enligt EU261-2004 i och med att de anser flygningen "försenades på grund av en omständighet som varken kunnat förutses eller avvärjas"Är detta något att bråka om eller ska jag finna mig deras utfall?Klicka för att utvidga...
Snöoväder är något flygbolaget kan inte råda över så tror jag att SAS har rätt i detta fall. = du får ingen ersättning från dem.Foffer skrev:I och med snöovädret som drabbade USAs öskkust förra helgen så blev jag 24 timmar sen hem från Washington (Avresa 25/1 istället för den 24/1). SAS vill inte ersätta förseningen med €600 enligt EU261-2004 i och med att de anser flygningen "försenades på grund av en omständighet som varken kunnat förutses eller avvärjas"Är detta något att bråka om eller ska jag finna mig deras utfall?Klicka för att utvidga...
NotRyan skrev:Det är ganska lönlöst... Du sa själv varför.....Klicka för att utvidga...
Dr. Miles skrev:Snöoväder är något flygbolaget kan inte råda över så tror jag att SAS har rätt i detta fall. = du får ingen ersättning från dem.Klicka för att utvidga...
chrisljo skrev:"Vi beklagar de besvär som uppstod i förbindelse med avvikelsen på din avgång DY7032 från Fort Lauderdale till Oslo den 16 december 2015. Avgången blev dessvärre försenad både av ett tekniskt problem (1 timma och 48 minuter) samt problem med flygplatsfaciliteter på en tidigare avgång (3 timmar och 38 minuter).Eftersom den tekniska delen endast var 1 timma och 48minuter och 3 timmar och 38 minuter av förseningen orsakades av extraordinära omständigheter kan vi dessvärre inte tillmötesgå din begäran om kompensation. Detta beslut grundar sig på EU-domstolens dom C-549/07 Wallentin-Hermann."Klicka för att utvidga...
agehall skrev:Det Norwegian hänvisar till är alltså att något skett som förhindrat föregående flight att avgå i tid och att detta därför påverkat förseningen med 3h 38min. Det må vara sant, men tyvärr är det helt ointressant eftersom händelser på föregående flighter utfört av flygplanet inte är intressanta.Med andra ord, Norwegian har fel. Jag skulle dock tro att de behöver bli stämda i rätten för att man ska få ut ersättning, men det finns ju företag som hjälper till med...Klicka för att utvidga...
agehall skrev:Med andra ord, Norwegian har fel. Jag skulle dock tro att de behöver bli stämda i rätten för att man ska få ut ersättning, men det finns ju företag som hjälper till med...Klicka för att utvidga...
Inlägg 305 i denna tråd.agehall skrev:Jag har inga referenser nu (sitter på mobilen), men det ska finnas.@Nemobrukar vara bra på att hitta dessa...Klicka för att utvidga...
Nedan följer ett par exempel där bland annat flygplatsfaciliteter kommer upp som exempel. Hur som helst så har detta skett före flighten till Ft. Lauderdale och inte inför avgående flight på Ft. Lauderdale samt att Norwegian ej har klargjort för tekniska problem som ej faller under extraordinära omständigheter:List of circumstances which are not extraordinaryTechnical Issues- Technical issues which arise as a result of the air carrier's failure to maintain its aircraft in accordance with the required maintenance programme.Technical Issues- Technical issues which were found during maintenance where the part or system in question was scheduled to be checked. Over-running maintenance can be a reflection of poor maintenance planning.Crew Out-of-Hours- When this occurs as a result of poor operational planning by the air carrier and inadequate flight and turnaround times being allocated for the aircraft.Absence of correct Flight Documentation- Where the failure to prepare and submit the documentation necessary to operate the flight was due to factors within the air carrier's control.Safety Assessment of Foreign Aircraft (SAFA) Inspections- SAFA aircraft inspections which reveal technical issues which require immediate assessment and/or aircraft repair. (These are issues that should have been addressed during the normal maintenance or operation of the aircraft)Klicka för att utvidga...
•2 months agoHi, Just after some advice, I was due to fly with BA from Washington DC to London on the 31st Oct, Our flight was delayed a total of 25 hours, When we eventually got on the flight the following day the pilot told us the reason for the delay was due to a truck hitting the plane whilst it was at the gate at Heathrow before the departure of the London - Washington flight. I have contact BA to claim delay compensation and also for refund of additional car hire and car parking costs i incurred but all have been refused, Do you think I have a case to pursue them over the claim and refunds?, ThanksJakub L.ModDan Hooper•2 months agoHi Dan, you are definitelly entitled to the compensation (€600 + refund for food and hotel accommodation). As far as I know, there is a Judgment of the Court of Justice ruling airline's obligation to pay compensations also in case when airport’s set of mobile boarding stairs collides with an aircraft = exactly like your situation. So, do insist on your claims! If you need our assistance, let me know anytime. Thanks, JakubDan HooperJakub L.•2 months agoHi, I've spoken to BA and they are now telling me the cause of the delay was a bird strike to the plane to the inbound flight ba217(my flight was ba216) is there somewhere I can check the official reason and not just taking it from BA customer services, the pilot told me a different reason for the delay and my original refusal email from BA also didn't mention a bird strike, just wondering where I can go from here,ThanksDanJakub L.ModDan Hooper•2 months agoHi Dan, there are so-called National Enforcement Bodies that can evaluate extraordinary circumstances on a case-by-case basis. Try to contact them or if you want, let me know and we'll do it for you. JakubKlicka för att utvidga...
Hi Ann, thanks for your comment. I think you may find very helpful this Judgment of the CourtCURIA - Documents.Basically it states that technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation of a flight is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’, unless that problem stems from events which are NOT inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the airline concerned and are beyond its actual control.It also states that airlines are confronted as a matter of course in the exercise of their activity with various technical problems to which the operation of those aircraft inevitably gives rise - in other words, it means that regular technical problems ARE inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the airline, thus it can not be considered as extraordinary circumstances.There is a very good example under the point 26: A situation where it was revealed by the manufacturer of the aircraft comprising the fleet of the air carrier concerned, or by a competent authority, that those aircraft, although already in service, are affected by a hidden manufacturing defect which impinges on flight safety - this would be covered by the term "extraordinary circumstances".You may find useful also this article on Daily MailPassenger Ronald Huzar wins landmark legal victory against Jet2.com | Daily Mail OnlineTo summarize your question - if Thomsons' technical problem is meant to be hidden manufactoring defect, it is extraordinary circumstance. If it isn't, it is not extraordinary.Klicka för att utvidga...
•a month agoHi there! I had a flight scheduled from Barcelona to Montreal, with a stopover to Amsterdam. The first flight was delayed 3 hours (and we found out 20 minutes before take off, arrrrghhh) so as I knew I was going to miss my flight for sure to Montreal, I went out of security to the KLM counter, and they re-routed me to JFK (yuuuuuck) so I arrived in Montreal 6 hours later than expected. I thought this was a slam-dunk 600 euro, but this was their response.Your travel falls under the guidelines of European Union Regulation (EC)261/2004 defining an airline's requirements when flight changes occur.Our records show KLM Flight 1666 on December 7 from Barcelona toAmsterdam wad delayed due to late inbound equipment because of theairport conditions.The delay was beyond our control and constitutes ?extraordinarycircumstances?. We took all the reasonable measures we could under thecircumstances and made every effort to offer you care and assistance.Regulation (EC) 261/2004 does not require compensation in this event.Jakub L.ModGeorge Giannou•a month agoHi George, thanks for the comment. You know, it's just a part of the game... airlines overuse the claim of "extraordinary circumstances" hoping that travelers will just give it up. The reason of "airport conditions" doesn't mean anything... you don't know if it was due to technical problems with some equipment, security or safety reasons, bad weather, etc. Therefore, your case is definitely worth further investigation... we can certainly help you with it, so don't hesitate to reach out to me anytime. Thanks, JakubKlicka för att utvidga...
dahlia1704•5 months agoHi Jakub,I recently received air ticket refund from Norwegian airlines for a cancelled flight last May. Reason for cancellation was given as "due to an unforeseen technical problem with a motor starter on previous departure". There was no other flights on the same or following day from the same airlines to my destination, so I had to pay premium fare of an alternative airline to keep up with my travel arrangements.The related flight was ARN-HEL and I received a message about thecancellation about 10 hours before the initial ETD but I only saw themessage about 3 hours before the departure time. In my opinion, the reason given does not equate to "extraordinary circumstances" but I would really appreciate your views and advice on the matter.ReplyJakub L.Moddahlia1704•5 months agoHi Dahlia, your opinion is right. Generally, technical problems should not be considered extraordinary circumstances, thus you should have been given a financial compensation amounting to €250. Even if it was an extraordinary circumstance, the airline had to offer you a CHOICE BETWEEN reimbursement (full refund of your ticket, so you can buy a new one) and alternate re-routing. If the re-routing didn't fit your needs, the reimbursement was a legal option. If you need us to mediate your case, please let me know. JakubReplydahlia1704Jakub L.•5 months agoHi again Jakub,I've conveyed my dissatisfaction with Norwegian's denial of my passenger rights claim entitlement, but so far they are adamant that they are not obliged to compensate me. They provided further justification as the following:"In accordance with the legislations which we are bound by, we are not obliged to provide compensation if the disruption was caused by reasonsoutside of our control. Circumstances that are beyond the control of the air carrier are events that are not caused by an act or omission of the air carrier. In light of this information, unfortunately we are unable to honour your request for EU compensation.For the avoidance of doubt, we refer to the relevant legislation and verdict found in the European Court of Justice which applies to your particular case.Regulation EC 261/2004, Article 5(3):An operating air carrier shall not be obligated to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7, if it can prove that the disruption was caused by an extraordinary circumstance which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.European Court of Justice – C-549/07 (Wallentin-Hermann):Judgement C-549/07 (Wallentin-Hermann) is trying to define what can be classified as extraordinary circumstances. According to the judgement, technical problems that are found during the scheduled maintenance of an aircraft cannot be defined as extraordinary circumstances, unless the technical problem stems from events which, bytheir nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the carrier’s activity and are beyond the operating carrier’s actual control. Circumstances that are not inherent in the operation of air services are events that do not routinely occur during the operation of the aircraft."Based on this recent communication, could you provide some views as to whether this is a done deal with absolutely no chance of me gaining the compensation? I would like to at least have Norwegian cover the full fare ticket that I had to purchase to continue with my travel plans, since they did not provide me with alternative means of travel.Klicka för att utvidga...
Agö skrev:Kan inte se att det skulle finnas något krav på att biljetten ska vara köpt innan förseningen uppstod, nej. Ta en för laget och testa!Klicka för att utvidga...
henke12 skrev:Suck och stön.HK-Flyg överklagade ARN's rekommendation och ARN valde att inte bifalla HK-Flygs överklagan utan slog fast att ge oss rätt och rekommendera HK-flyg att betala oss 5x250€ (5 personer)HK-Flyg väljer nu att inte följa ARN's rekommendation!Klicka för att utvidga...
Smuffe skrev:När det flyter på så är Norwegian ett bolag som tar en fram till destinationen ibland för en femtiolapp till någon hundring under vad SAS tar inrikes/Skandinavien om man endast har handbagage.Men vad hjälper det när det strular och man blir lämnad vind för våg, de vägrar betala ut ersättning och man inte har någon lounge att gråta ut i över en stänkare eller två?Nä, tvi för den vele! Utan det här forumet hade jag aldrig lärt mig att veckovis uttrycka@NotRyan's citat "Fulflyg bojkottas jämt!"Klicka för att utvidga...
Rebel skrev:Jag håller med för en hundring är det inte värt det, men för halva priset???Klicka för att utvidga...