[Anonymous]

[DavidGordon10]

This post is to ask forum members what they know about case law relevant to EU Rule 261/2004.

The issue is this: a LH flight into Tbilisi went technical (a hydraulic fault) and diverted to Ankara. This was the plane on which I was due to fly out via MUC to LHR. I was rebooked by LH staff on to TK, and travelled via Istanbul to London, arriving 6 hours behind schedule. There are two elements, the delay, and also a downgrade from business to economy – there were no business seats available.

LH is saying that there will be compensation for the downgrade (they still can’t work out how much about 12 weeks later) but they deny that they have any liability for the delay, because the cause was out of their control – saying that there has been a court case with a judgement that a plane going technical is an unforeseen circumstance like very severe weather.

Is this correct? Does anyone know?

[seasonedtraveller]

Not correct.
Technical issues are ‘Part and parcel of running an airline’ and are therefore not ‘extraordinary circumstances outside the airlines control’

Easiest way to make a claim is to let these folks deal with it – LH paid me within 10 days following a 6 hour delay due to Technical

http://www.refund.me

[MartinJ]

More specifically, it is European Court of Justice cases C-549/07, C-402/07 and C-432/07 that clearly set out that technical faults must not be interpreted as “extraordinary circumstances”.

[LuganoPirate]

Yes David, they must pay out. Despite my earlier posts I’d persevere a bit more on this as you’re in the right.

[MrMichael]

What I do not understand is how airlines continually try to avoid what the law says they must provide. I cannot believe LH are not aware of the legal ruling, nor can I believe that LH instruct staff to lie. The question is when they first refused you David, was it due to ignorance, was it due to LH staff being told to do so, or was it the person that told you were trying to do their employer a favour. I rather think (and hope) the latter.

We know that Ryanair and a few others are past masters at being slippery eels, but LH!

[LuganoPirate]

As I mentioned elsewhere today, it’s not the individual amounts, which are quite small, but add them all up and it runs into the (many) millions. I think they try and wear people down in order to cut their compensation bill substantially.

[MrMichael]

LuganoPirate, good point, but to do that it needs to be a policy decision relayed to staff. For an organisation the size of Lufthansa I find it hard to believe the instruction to staff is to mislead and lie to its customers. One heck of a smoking gun internal memo if that is the case.

[LuganoPirate]

Years ago MrMichael I had a business in the 80’s manufacturing consumer products. Our clients were the big supermarkets, Tesco et al as well as own brands for some big names. Payment terms were 30 days end of month but it was rare to be paid before 90 or 120 days.

The excuses kept coming. The invoice is lost, please resend. Can’t match the delivery receipt please make a copy and send. Receipt lost in post, send again. Second signatory is ill, back next week. Etc etc etc. I later found out the accounts payable would be trained into making excuses not to pay.

So yes, I’m afraid, I think they are instructed in wriggling out of these claims!

[IanFromHKG]

To go back to DavidGordon’s original question, it depends on the nature of the technical fault. If it was poor maintenance etc, LH should pay compensation. If the relevant oart(s) had been maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions, they are not liable.

However, they are liable for the downgrade, and the basic rule there is clear: 30% of the fare for flights under 1,500km, 50% for flights over 1,500km within the EU (except to/from the French departements) or between 1,500 and 3,500km elsewhere, and 75% for all other flights

EDITED TO ADD:

Although only in draft form, this is a useful guide to the regulators’ perspective:

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/passengers/air/doc/neb-extraordinary-circumstances-list.pdf

[MartinJ]

Ian, I disagree. In November 2009 the European Court of Justice ruled that air carriers cannot rely on a technical fault within an aircraft as a defence from a valid claim under Regulation 261/2004. (Period. Even proper maintenance is no excuse.)

[DiamondDad68]

On a similar note. I recieved this repsonse from Air France recently.

“We know we may not take the custom of any of our passengers for granted, but have to deliver service of a quality that will encourage you to think of us as the airline of choice. I have studied the matter carefully, and confirm that our records show that the aircraft due to serve as your flight AF117 on 18 June, 2011 from Shanghai to Paris was delayed owing to congestion in the airspace governed by Air Traffic Control.

Given that the delay was due to a factor that was external to Air France, and was, in our view sudden, unforeseeable and could not have been prevented by any reasonable measures at our disposal, it remains our opinion that the circumstances should be regarded as extraordinary under the terms of the EU261 legislation you refer to, which relieves the airline of its obligation to pay the compensation you seek.”

Can anyone advise wheter Are ATC are deyays are extraordinary circumstances? or should I still pursue AF

[LuganoPirate]

MartinJ, the link Ian gave shows an agreement dated April 2013. Perhaps that supersedes the 2009 ruling?

[LuganoPirate]

DiamondDad, according to para. 29 & 30 in the link Ian gave, it would appear AF are correct and further pursuit would be a waste of time. I know it’s not always the case, but it’s probably common sense as well, after all an aircraft has to follow instructions from ATC and can’t just fly when and where it wants.

[MartinJ]

Perhaps we can entrust this tricky question to the wisdom of Alex McW?

[Author]

Posts